1. This Budget Report reviews the financial position of the University and recommends allocations from the Chest for the financial year 2017–18.
2. Information on trends in staff and student numbers, research, and expenditure patterns is provided in the usual way in Appendices 1–4.
3. This year's Budget Report shows a continued deterioration in financial forecasts as anticipated last year. The Chest is forecast to remain in deficit over the planning period, although the position is anticipated to improve from a deficit of £21m in 2017–18 to one of just under £6m in 2020–21.
4. This position is viewed seriously by the Council, although it is considered to be manageable for a limited period given the strength of the University's balance sheet, the size of the University's endowment, and the scale of annual turnover. Operating with a Chest deficit, albeit for the short-term only, enables the University to maintain momentum and invest in areas of strategic academic importance, and to provide administrative services that have been agreed by the Heads of Schools and the Planning and Resources Committee ('PRC') as being fundamental to the core operation of the University.
8. The University and the Colleges are maintaining a joined-up approach to student number planning and are taking into account the longer-term impact and opportunities of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union ('EU'). Two distinct groups are in operation: a recently reinstated University and Colleges Numbers Sub-committee of the Undergraduate Admissions Committee, and a Joint University and Colleges Working Group on Postgraduate Student Numbers, which will report by the end of the academic year.
9. Current forecasts assume growth in postgraduate student numbers through new and expanded courses.14 Achieving and maintaining this forecast growth will be challenging given the UK's withdrawal from the EU.15 Trends in student applications and acceptances, the actual mix and number of all students, and the consequences for fee income overall will continue to be monitored closely because a reduction in this significant income stream could be damaging for the University. In pursuance of this objective a postgraduate recruitment strategy has been developed and is being implemented.
10. Philanthropy continues to be a significant component of the financial strategy for collegiate Cambridge. The Campaign is progressing well and, as at 31 July 2016, £753m had been raised against the £2bn target. A continuing priority is to ensure that philanthropic giving is aligned with the core objectives of the University and the academic priorities of the Schools. Initiatives that will enhance and improve the University's engagement and partnerships with international trusts and foundations (amongst others) are already in place and will continue to be developed. The University's global reach will become increasingly important in forthcoming years.
11. Expenditure must be constrained and greater efficiencies achieved. A challenge in this planning round has been achieving a balance between investment in academic activities on the one hand, and in supporting administrative services – which in turn support academic activities – on the other.16 Improving the efficiency of the administration throughout the University has been and will continue to be a priority, and the University's participation in a detailed benchmarking exercise, UniForum,17 will help to clarify the level of resourcing needed to provide an efficient and effective University administration. However, it is likely to be a further year before the data will be fully understood and the University will be in a position to consider how it wishes to respond. In the meantime, academic growth,18 changes in higher education governance and policy,19 the increasing complexity and scale of the University's capital programme,20 and the forthcoming withdrawal from the EU are placing heavy and increasing demands on administrative services across the University. The balance between expenditure on academic and non-academic activities that is proposed in this Budget Report reflects these tensions, but in no way diminishes the urgent need to rationalize administrative provision over the next three years. Cost control and financial restraint are central to improving the University's financial position and the Schools, central offices, and other non-School institutions ('NSIs') must find ways of constraining and reducing expenditure accordingly without diminishing the quality of the core services they provide.
12. A substantial proportion of annual expenditure from the Chest is for the benefit of collegiate Cambridge. The efficient and effective use of public and private funds is a responsibility that must be shared by the University and the Colleges.
13. Over the next twelve months, a priority for the University's PRC will be to develop and implement robust strategies that will return the Chest to balance by the end of the current planning period and to a more financially sustainable position for the longer term. These strategies will support the generation of new and additional income to the Chest, and must constrain and reduce expenditure.
14. Achieving financial improvement will necessitate changes to the University's planning and resource allocation processes. As noted in last year's Budget Report, there must be appropriate mechanisms and incentives in place to ensure that the academic community benefits directly, having implemented strategies that raise income and contribute to an improved overall financial position for the University. The Resource Management Committee ('RMC') has been overseeing a review of the University's approach to resource allocation and has supported, in principle, a proposal in which the Resource Allocation Model ('RAM') could be used to calculate core allocations for each School. Through this mechanism there would be a more direct link between Schools' financial performance and subsequent allocations from the Chest. The intention is that this will incentivize academics to engage in strategically important activity that is also financially sustainable. At the same time, it is also recognized that the University will want to continue to invest in certain areas of education and research that are not necessarily financially self-sustaining, but are outstanding and world-leading nonetheless. Further development of the RAM model is underway in order to identify a cross-funding mechanism to address this issue and that will also protect Schools from significant fluctuations in allocation from one year to the next. The aim is to pilot a model in the next planning round and, subject to feedback, implement the new methodology formally from Planning Round 2018.
16. An improved understanding of longer-term academic strategies will also support the possibility of a new approach to planning and resource allocation processes for the NSIs. These institutions have an important role to play in the support of the University's core education and research activity. They also provide services that are of value to communities beyond the University, but that are not necessarily linked to academic priorities. Given the increasing pressure on Chest resources, it is more important than ever for the NSIs to respond directly and specifically in their plans to the long-term academic goals as articulated by the Schools.22 The subsequent allocation of Chest resources to the NSIs may need to be prioritized towards those services that the Schools assert are fundamental to achieving their academic objectives. Agreement on this will need to be achieved through a more iterative process between the Schools and the NSIs than has hitherto been the case. Prioritizing Chest resources in this way will increase the need for the NSIs to become more financially sustainable and to find alternative ways of funding activity that is 'non-core', but is nevertheless of importance and value to communities internal and external to the University. The University will help the NSIs to achieve this goal by ensuring that their governance structures are robust and by providing access to appropriate support functions, including fundraising and communications.
17. The Schools also need to focus attention on generating efficiencies by making progress in streamlining their internal governance and administrative structures. The scope for shared service models should be explored, taking into account not only the potential for implementation within a single School, but also the possibilities for shared provision with other Schools. As already noted, the UniForum benchmarking exercise will provide some valuable insights that can inform this work, and help to identify where there might be most potential to achieve efficiencies. Work on this can begin now and continue over the next twelve to eighteen months with the objective of beginning to implement new ways of working from Planning Round 2018.
18. In the meantime, the PRC is considering the guidance and expectations for Planning Round 2017, with the aim of being able to report in next year's Budget Report on progress achieved towards raising income and reducing expenditure.
20. The UK's decision to leave the EU is likely to have major repercussions for the higher education sector in general, and for the University of Cambridge in particular. Nationals of other EU countries constitute 8.5% of Cambridge's undergraduates, 23% of its postgraduate students, 27% of its postdocs, 16% of its academic staff, and 17% of all staff. Funds from the EU provide 12.6% of the University's total research income, and 18% of new grants and awards.24 European networks and funding programmes25 play an invaluable role in the education, research, and enterprise activities of the University. Any negative impact of the referendum result on the UK's international standing poses a threat to the University's global profile and reputation.
21. An EU Working Group26 is considering the consequences of leaving the EU and is working hard to ensure that the University is in the strongest possible position to mitigate the negative impacts of the UK's exit, and to take advantage of opportunities in the new environment. The University has been highly influential in its engagement with Ministers, local Members of Parliament, Peers, Members of the European Parliament, and representatives from the city of Cambridge and the wider region. A strategic response has also been prepared for the Council focusing on four key areas – students, staff, research funding, and global reputation and reach.
22. At the same time as the terms of the UK's exit from the EU are under negotiation, the Higher Education sector is facing other transformative changes to the way in which education and research is delivered and governed. The Higher Education and Research Bill received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017 and a transition of the sector's regulation and funding from the Higher Education Council for England to the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation is underway.
23. The University has participated in Year 1 of the Teaching Excellence Framework, and has implemented an associated inflationary uplift in fees for Home/EU students from Michaelmas Term 2017. It has also participated in Year 2, which will inform the rate of fees for Home/EU students in 2018–19.27 The awards for TEF2 will be announced in June 2017.
25. The internal environment of the University is also undergoing change. The term of the current Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, comes to an end this year and Professor Stephen Toope will become the new Vice-Chancellor from 1 October 2017. This is one of a series of changes in the University's senior leadership. Mr Anthony Odgers has joined the University as its first Chief Financial Officer.31 Professor Andrew Neely is newly appointed as the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Enterprise and Business Relations. Professor Ian Leslie has been appointed as Senior Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Information System Strategy and Environmental Sustainability. Ms Emma Rampton is Acting Registrary following the retirement of the former Registrary, Dr Jonathan Nicholls.
26. The University continues to support and promote educational initiatives that will enhance teaching and learning. The virtual Cambridge Centre for Teaching and Learning was launched in April 2016 and provides opportunities to build on best practice in teaching and learning across the University.32 A Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund continues to offer grants33 for University staff to fund creative projects with the aim of promoting innovative practice in teaching and learning techniques that will enhance the educational experience. The Centre for Teaching and Learning also provides a focus for strategic priorities within Cambridge and for engaging with national and international developments in higher education. The Centre's second annual Teaching Forum was held in March 2017 and provided an opportunity for staff to share ideas, learn about innovative approaches to teaching, and discuss wider higher education issues.
30. The Royce Institute, which will have a hub in Manchester, will be a leading centre for advanced materials research and commercialization. Funding is being distributed across the Institute and its six partners to support investments in new equipment and infrastructure.
32. The University awaits government approval of the business case for the new Cavendish Laboratory. A sum of £75m is anticipated from the government in contribution to this significant project for the University and the Department of Physics.43 The result will be a new, modern Laboratory that is fit for purpose for world-leading research and teaching in the Department, and that can provide a national facility to support UK-wide physics research.
33. The Council endorsed the Strategic Framework for the Development of the University's Estate in November 2016. This framework prioritizes improving the utilization of existing space and also provides guiding principles to inform the expansion of the estate and the acquisition or disposal of land or buildings. These broad principles, and an increasing understanding of the long-term academic goals across the six Schools, will help the relevant Committees44 in their capital decision-making processes.
34. The relative absence over past decades of sustained capital investment means that significant parts of the University's estate now comprise buildings that are no longer suitable for modern education and research of the quality for which this University is known. Failure to refresh and rebuild these parts of the estate, or to provide new, modern buildings to meet anticipated growth, risks a decline in the University's academic activities and, ultimately, a fall in its long-standing and hard-won reputation.
35. Therefore the University's capital programme needs to be ambitious. If all projects were to be taken forward, it would require capital expenditure over the next 15–20 years of over £4 billion. University resources in isolation cannot deliver development on this scale and it is possible that some projects will not be taken forward. The Chief Financial Officer and the Director of Estate Strategy will explore alternative funding models as well as reflect on the management resources necessary to support such a significant programme. Alongside this work, the Schools must take a lead in prioritizing their building projects, and be proactive in preparing for opportunities to bid to government funding schemes. Given the increasing interest by government in funding research institutes involving several partnering institutions, the Schools are encouraged to consider how new facilities may be of regional benefit and, potentially, support national interests in key academic areas.
36. The North West Cambridge Development, which is a ring-fenced project under the management of the West and North West Cambridge Estates Board, continues to make progress and a new district, Eddington, is opening in phases. Applications for affordable housing are already open to University staff and the first residents will be moving into their new homes over the summer. A series of public tours of the site held to showcase the development under construction have been well attended with positive feedback from University staff and local residents. The local centre and public realm is anticipated to open in summer 2017 with postgraduate housing being fully occupied from 2017–18. Phase 2 of the development is now being considered and detailed proposals are expected to be made this year.
37. In June 2016, the PRC agreed again to continue the Planning Guidance issued in previous years. Schools and NSIs have, therefore, prepared forecasts of income and expenditure assuming a 1% increase in Chest allocation for 2017–18 over 2016–17 and for each year thereafter. Schools and NSIs may also bid for additional allocation in support of investment in strategic priorities. The outcome of this exercise is outlined in paragraphs 52–58.
38. Assumptions about future pay awards are a key area of sensitivity in the financial projections of this Budget Report and increases in pay inevitably lead to significant, additional recurrent costs. A central contingency is set aside to mitigate this risk for Chest-funded posts, but the risk of extra costs remains. For modelling purposes, the pay award assumed in the planning guidance was 1% per year during the planning period. Apart from National pay awards, all additional pay costs arising from promotions, increments, and regrading are met from within allocations to the Schools and other NSIs except where separate provision is made.45 The Finance Division's pay model is used to identify how University-level forecasts would change for different pay assumptions.
39. A default inflation assumption of 2% has been used for non-pay inflation in all years unless there have been compelling reasons to adopt an alternative assumption for specific classes of non-pay expenditure.
40. The RMC continues to use the current RAM and RAM Distribution Model. The RAM Distribution Model is based on end-of-year RAM calculations, whereby, if a School's RAM surplus exceeds 5% of its out-turn, then 10% of the surplus above the tolerance band is added to the School's allocation in the next round. Similarly, if a School's RAM deficit exceeds 5% of actual out-turn, then 10% of the deficit below the tolerance band is subtracted from the allocation. The operation of this mechanism based on the accounts for 2015–16 has resulted in an increase in core allocation in 2017–18 for one School and a reduction for another (see summary of additions to allocations table below). As mentioned in paragraph 14, an alternative RAM is under development for piloting in Planning Round 2017 and implementation in Planning Round 2018.
41. For the purposes of this Report, allocations to Schools and NSIs are assumed to be fully spent even if a balance is carried forward to the next year. This is the mechanism by which Chest-derived reserves accumulate.
42. The Secretary of State sets out the annual funding for higher education in a letter to HEFCE. This year's Funding Letter to HEFCE was received on 23 February 2017, and the announcement of grants for each institution funded by HEFCE was made available, under embargo, on 12 April 2017.
43. Appendix 5 describes HEFCE funding in 2017–18. The University's allocation of HEFCE funding for teaching has been decreasing significantly each year. The marginal increase for 2017–18 is due to the extra funding for the increased clinical intake in 2017.
45. As always, the allocations outlined in the HEFCE grant letter are provisional since the academic and government financial years differ. A government budget cut in 2018–19 may therefore result in a 'claw-back' from the 2017–18 HEFCE allocations.
46. The actual Chest out-turn for 2015–16 is provided in Table 1 of this Report (p. 613). The overall position on the Chest was a deficit of £2.1m compared to a £2.7m surplus anticipated in the original budget. The deterioration is due largely to a reduction in income from academic fees, and in the Chest share of overheads from research grants and contracts.
48. Activities funded outside the Chest (excluding Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Assessment, and the Cambridge Trust) were previously forecast to result in a deficit of £16.2m in 2016–17 after making a contribution to the Chest for central costs. This component of the budget is difficult to predict with precision but there is currently no reason to expect a significantly different out-turn by the end of the year.
49. Forecast Chest income for 2017–18 is £453.2m compared to £452.0m assumed in the 2016 Budget Report. The increase of £1.2m is driven in the main by the increase in HEFCE funding for Teaching and Research. When compared to the forecasts submitted in the previous Budget Report, HEFCE income has increased by £5.3m. This reflects the higher mainstream QR income as described in para. 44, and includes £3.4m funding for Knowledge Exchange (formerly Higher Education Innovation Fund) that had not been assumed in the income forecasts for the previous Budget Report. However, the impact of the increase in HEFCE funding on Chest income overall is reduced as a result of a decrease of just over £3.0m in endowment income and interest receivable, and £1.1m in other operating income48 when compared to forecasts submitted in the 2016 Budget Report.
50. A breakdown of the forecasts for 2017–18 is shown in Table 4 (p. 615). Forecast expenditure includes a number of bids for additional Chest allocation beyond the core 1% increase built into the planning guidance. Bids were scrutinized at annual planning meetings with each School and NSI, and reviewed again at a joint meeting of the PRC and the RMC. In the current planning round, these Committees have agreed to recommend increases to allocations in 2017–18 totalling £9.1m as detailed in the summary below.
51. The Operating Budget described in this Report is developed and managed on a fund accounting basis. The University's annual Financial Statements are prepared on a financial accounting basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. A number of adjustments are needed to convert the Operating Budget to a format comparable to the Income and Expenditure account seen in the University's Financial Statements. The main adjustments are to remove capital expenditure from the Operating Budget and bring in a depreciation charge, to estimate the amount of spend against reserves and build-up of reserves, and, with a change to new accounting standards, inclusion of certain donations received. To aid comparison with the Financial Statements, such a conversion of the Operating Budget for 2017–18 is shown in Table 5 (p. 616). The Council considers, however, that the format used in Table 3is the appropriate one for planning.
*The allocation to the School of Arts and Humanities in 2017–18 includes £275k of non-recurrent funding.
†This is £10k higher than the provisional allocation already made for the Institute of Continuing Education in financial forecasts.
‡This is a non-recurrent allocation in 2017–18.
§This figure includes £125k for 2017–18 that was provisionally endorsed in the previous planning round.
#This figure includes £755k which is non-recurrent and for 2017–18 only.
◊The additional allocation to the UAS is forecast to reduce from £3,941k in 2017–18 to £2,188k by 2020–21 as forecast non-recurrent funding needs fall away and cashable savings increase.
53. The additional allocation for the NSIs is £6.6m, which is summarized in the table. As already noted earlier in this Report, a challenge in this year's planning round has been achieving a balance between investment in Schools, on the one hand, and in NSIs on the other. The main components of the allocations to the NSIs are described below.
55. Approximately £0.5m of the increase represents recurrent allocation to fund posts that, to date, have been funded by reserves or other non-recurrent funding sources.54 This has been part of a strategy of spending down Chest reserves in line with guidance approved by the PRC in recent planning rounds. This is no longer a sustainable strategy for the UAS.
58. The increase to the Botanic Garden is fully funded by HEFCE Higher Education Museums, Galleries, and Collections funding. The £679k uplift to Cambridge in America is required to cover the deterioration in the US$/GBP exchange rate.59 The allocation to the University Library is non-recurrent in 2017–1860 and supports the operation of the Research Data Management Facility pending a review of the continuing level of funding necessary to comply with external open access and open data requirements. The funding for the Fitzwilliam Museum and Kettle's Yard will facilitate the participation of museum staff in teaching and research activity in co-ordination with relevant academic Departments in the School of Arts and Humanities.61 The funding also provides essential support to ensure a successful relaunch of Kettle's Yard when the extended museum opens in 2018.
59. The RMC has also considered the forecasts for the Administered Funds. Overall, the forecasts for 2017–18 are just under £2m higher than forecast in the previous Budget Report.62 These centrally-held funds, which meet University-wide costs, were reviewed by the RMC in 2016 and the Committee endorsed the grouping of the funds into distinct categories to show more clearly how funds were being spent. The largest proportion of expenditure from the Administered Funds (57%) is in direct support of educational and research activity, which is forecast to be £113.7m in 2017–18. This includes the College Fee transfer (£47.3m), the Chest contribution to the University Graduate Fee (£27.2m), contributions to the Cambridge Commonwealth, European, and International Trust and other bursaries (£13.9m), HEFCE charity support funding for Departments (£8.7m), Knowledge Exchange (£3.4m), Widening Participation and outreach (£1.5m),63 and Examiner and Supervisor Fees (£1.4m).
60. The Administered Funds also include the estate maintenance budget, for which the allocation is £19.8m (10% of total Administered Funds) in 2017–18. Estate Management's forecasts are informed by an asset prioritization model, which has enabled the production of more sophisticated data to support maintenance planning and the identification of higher and medium priorities for maintenance works over the planning period. The Buildings Committee endorsed the Long-Term maintenance plan covering the period up to 2020–21.
61. Other significant allocations to the Administered Funds include £18.2m towards utilities costs, £7.1m for IT including projects under the oversight of the Information Services Committee, £6.6m towards University-wide rates and rents, £4.3m towards a contingency fund for pay costs (see para. 38), £2.5m for the Minor Works fund, and £2m for the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund.
62. The forecasts for the Chest show a deficit across the planning period.
63. Tuition fee income beyond 2017–18 is based on expected changes to the composition of the student population and the changing fee structures.
64. Projections of expenditure beyond 2017–18 have been built up from the detailed plans at School and NSI level submitted in December 2016.
65. Pay awards have been assumed to be 1% per annum across the planning period with a contingency set aside to allow for any variation in actual pay awards.
66. The University is in a position to operate with a Chest deficit for the short term in order to maintain investment in areas of strategic academic importance, and to provide administrative services that have been agreed as being fundamental to the core operation of the University.
67. However, the University must return to a more financially sustainable position over the longer term and this will necessitate measures to increase income and to restrain expenditure. Proposals for new mechanisms for allocating resources, and that include the introduction of appropriate incentives, have been endorsed by the Resource Management Committee and are undergoing further refinement. Changes to the University's planning processes are in development and discussions about longer-term academic strategies have already been initiated. The output of the UniForum exercise will provide greater clarity in relation to the structure and resourcing of the University's administrative services. This, in turn, will help to inform discussions about how those administrative services can best support the University's academic endeavour. These initiatives will contribute to a strategy to return the Chest to balance and to improve the University's financial sustainability over the long term. These measures are essential in order to ensure that Cambridge is well placed to manage risks and act on opportunities in a volatile and uncertain external environment.
(a)to the Council for all purposes other than the University Education Fund: £121.1m.
(b)to the General Board for the University Education Fund: £353.5m.
II. That any supplementary HEFCE grants which may be received for special purposes during 2017–18 be allocated by the Council, wholly or in part, either to the General Board for the University Education Fund or to any other purpose consistent with any specification made by HEFCE, and that the amounts contained in Recommendation I above be adjusted accordingly.
1See paras. 46–47, and 49.
2This calculation is based on TRAC Income as a percentage of TRAC costs in 2014–15. The position has deteriorated from a loss of approximately 11 pence in the pound for 2012–13 and 2013–14. The funding mechanisms make it very difficult to recover the full costs for research. The Research Councils only pay 80% of the full economic cost and charities tend to pay no overheads although the University can, for eligible charity-funded research, claim Charity QR.
3It is also important to ensure that all direct costs are recovered from those sponsors who do not pay overheads.
4The RMC requires all industrially funded research to charge a minimum price of 100% full economic cost.
7More examples of engagement with industry are provided later in this Report in paras. 28–30. The University's response to the government's new industrial strategy will also inform the scope for further engagement with industry. Other helpful measures include work to strengthen support for University-level engagement with key industrial partners and the development of Framework Agreements with major commercial entities.
8A new approach to the allocation of resources is under development. See para. 14.
9This is discussed in more detail in paras. 33–35.
10This is under consideration by the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the Chief Financial Officer, in co-ordination with the Director of Estate Strategy. See para. 35.
12Cambridge tuition fees for Home fee status students starting their first undergraduate degree in 2017 will be £9,250 for all courses. Tuition fees for these students, and new entrants thereafter, are expected to rise in subsequent years in line with inflation. The fee for EU students who are already studying at Cambridge or who will start their studies in 2017 or 2018 will be at the applicable Home rate for the duration of their course.
13Some marginal costs will also be incurred, but the overall impact can be positive for the Chest. Student number planning is being overseen by two main groups as described in para. 8.
14Forecasts for postgraduate student numbers are aspirational only. The Joint University and Colleges Working Group on Postgraduate Student Numbers will be making proposals at the end of Easter Term relating to the size of the postgraduate student population. Undergraduate student numbers are fixed, with the exception of the Clinical School expansion over the next few years.
15The fee status of EU nationals for 2019 entry onwards has yet to be determined by the UK government.
18For example, through the accretion of MRC units, through plans for growth in areas of research and teaching which in turn require the delivery of new facilities and buildings, and the increasing complexity of academic collaborations such as those involving third parties.
19For example, the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework, and the anticipated move to new regulatory structures including the Office for Students, and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
21A better understanding of academic strategies will inform decision-making when opportunities to invest in new academic activity emerge at short notice. Recent examples of investment decisions include bids to host a Dementia Research Institute regional centre, and a Health Foundation Improvement Research Institute (see para. 31) and there are clear synergies with established academic priorities for the School of Clinical Medicine in each case. It will be helpful, however, to have more visibility of the longer-term strategies of all Schools in order to understand more clearly how opportunistic investment in one initiative may reduce the scope for future investment in another, and influence the size and shape of the University over a period of time.
22This, in turn, requires a clear articulation by the Schools of their longer-term academic goals.
23The publication of this Budget Report will immediately follow the outcome of the General Election held on 8 June 2017.
24See Council Paper 'The UK's exit from the EU – strategies proposed in response', page 1.
25This includes education and development programmes such as Erasmus+.
26This is chaired by the PVC for Research, and its membership includes all other Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and Professor Catherine Barnard (Professor of European Union Law and Senior Tutor and Fellow of Trinity College).
27The outcome for Year 2 of the Teaching Excellence Framework will be determined by a panel of academics, employers, and students and will be based on the assessment of metrics issued by HEFCE to providers and calculated from data returned to the Higher Education Statistical Agency and the University's narrative submission.
30A copy of the full submission was received by the Council at its meeting on 24 April 2017.
31The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for overseeing the financial and trading activities of the University group and for ensuring the group's financial health and sustainability.
32More information about the Centre and its activities can be found at http://www.cctl.cam.ac.uk/.
33The Digital Teaching and Learning Sub-committee makes a number of grants available each year. Grants range from between £10,000 and £20,000.
34The Digital Strategy for Education, which commenced in 2016, focuses on activities up to 2020.
35Two pilot projects are running in 2016–17 on lecture capture, and on computer-based examinations. More details on the Strategy can be found on http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/committees/digital-teaching-and-learning-sub-committee.
36The physical relocation of the Unit from its current base in Leicester is anticipated to take place during 2020. The Unit will occupy space alongside the Department of Pharmacology.
40The central hub will be at Harwell, near Oxford. It will link to partner sites including the universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh, Manchester, Oxford, Imperial College, King's College London, and University College London.
42The Institute will be led by Mary Dixon-Woods, RAND Professor of Health Services Research and Wellcome Trust Investigator.
43The project has already received approval from the Business and Science Group Capital Board and the Projects and Investment Committee at BEIS, and has been given a satisfactory assurance rating via an Office of Government Commerce Gateway Review.
44Specifically the Estate Strategy Committee, in terms of the strategy for the development of the estate, and the Planning and Resources Committee, which oversees the University's Capital Plan, and Capital Projects Process. These Committees are supported by a series of Site Development Boards.
45The in-year costs of the contribution reward and progression schemes for academic, and academic-related and assistant staff is met non-recurrently via the relevant central administered fund. Thereafter, the recurrent cost must be managed within existing Chest baselines.
46Sector total mainstream QR research funding has increased by £17m. Charity Support and Business Research funding reflect changing volumes reported in the HESA returns and for 2017–18, for the first time, are calculated on an average of four past years instead of two.
47The fall in other operating income is due to reductions in the recovery of the Indirect Cost Charge and Trust Fund overheads, and central cost recovery from Major Research Facilities.
48The reduction in operating income is driven by a fall in Indirect Cost Charge and Trust Fund overheads, and in Central Cost recovery on Major Research Facilities.
49The PRC and RMC have observed that it cannot allocate resources without a fully worked-out business plan, a point that has been made in previous planning rounds. Amongst the allocations for 2017–18, central provision has been made for an allocation to the School of Arts and Humanities. However, the PRC and RMC have made clear that this will not be released until a full business plan to underpin the strategic plan has been produced by the School and endorsed by the RMC.
50The undergraduate clinical student cohort increases from 160fte per annum to approximately 273fte per annum from 2017–18. The majority of the allocation is for the benefit of the Clinical School, but a proportion is also available to the School of the Biological Sciences in recognition that increased teaching costs will fall on this School.
51As recommended in an External Review of the Teaching of Anatomy.
52The Clinical Academic Reserve funding is being withdrawn by the Clinical Commissioning Groups. The funding agreed here continues an arrangement agreed by the RMC in previous planning rounds.
53This includes, but is not limited to, the new Chief Financial Officer. The Council endorsed the North West Cambridge Audit Group's recommendation that that the University appoint a Chief Financial Officer, reporting directly to the Vice-Chancellor (Council Minute 81(c) from the meeting on 14 March 2016).
54This includes the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund.
55Several meetings were held over the course of the planning period to scrutinize the detail behind the request for funding from the UAS. These meetings involved the Heads of the Schools (or their agreed representative), and included the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the Acting Registrary. The primary item of business at the joint PRC/RMC meeting on 29 March 2017 was forecast allocations for 2017 and the joint Committee supported the request from the UAS.
57A thorough review of the overall financial model for the UIS is underway and will be overseen by the Senior Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Information Systems Strategy.
58The current business plan for the High Performance Computing Facility is being reviewed with the aim of maximizing the opportunities to recover the operational costs through income generated from industry.
59The Chest is the beneficiary when the exchange rate works in favour of the pound.
60A non-recurrent allocation of up to £200k is earmarked for 2017–18.
61The expectation is that museum staff will be returnable in the next Research Excellence Framework.
62In the 2016 Budget Report the forecast allocation to the administered funds in 2017–18 was £196.1m. The £2m increase relative to the 2016 Budget Report is masked in the Tables of this Budget Report due to in-year cost neutral transfers totalling £3.3m from the administered funds to non-UAS baselines, resulting in a corresponding reduction to the Administered Funds overall. This is in accordance with a decision by the RMC that recurrent activity should be reflected in institutional baselines rather than being held separately in central administered funds. The RMC approved cost neutral transfers of £3.3m and of £6.6m in October 2016. The transfer of £6.6m from the administered funds to UAS baselines will be actioned in time for the start of the financial year 2017–18, with a corresponding reduction in the overall allocation to the administered funds.
63This represents only a part of expenditure by the collegiate University on widening participation and outreach. It is estimated that, in 2017–18, overall expenditure by the collegiate University will be approximately £9.5m, including bursaries and other financial measures.
1. This Report proposes that the University's student complaint and review procedures be amended, revised, or supplemented as set out in this Report, with effect from 1 October 2017, and that they are brought under the direct oversight, and subject to the approval, of the General Board. The proposals reflect (i) a review of the University's student complaint and review procedures prompted by the 'Good Practice Framework for handling complaints and academic appeals' by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), and (ii) the Education Committee's discussions of complaints and review procedures and its consideration of the OIA framework.
2. The proposals have been developed in consultation with the officers and members of the Board of Graduate Studies, the Board of Examinations, the Faculty Boards of Clinical Medicine and of Veterinary Medicine, and the Council's Standing Committee on Applications.
3. Following publication by the OIA of its 'Good Practice Framework for handling complaints and academic appeals' in December 2014 (http://www.oiahe.org.uk/providers-and-good-practice/good-practice-framework.aspx) and a review of the framework by the Education Committee of the General Board in Lent Term 2015, work has been undertaken to review the University's student complaints procedures and the examination review procedures, in addition to establishing a single procedure for the review of decisions taken by different University bodies.
•The General Board will become the body responsible for the approval of the procedures, and explanatory notes on the use of those procedures. The procedures and explanatory notes that would be established by the General Board on the approval of the recommendations of this Report are set out in Annexes C–E. Changes to be introduced in relation to each individual procedure are noted below.
•A new review stage to the procedure, limited to a procedural review of the complaint decision.
•As a result of the narrowing of grounds, the Review stage is undertaken by a single Reviewer, in line with the current Student Complaints Procedure and the current Procedure for the Review of Decisions of the Applications Committee of the Council.
•The schedule of decisions open to review by this procedure could be widened to include other processes that affect students as procedures are introduced or amended.
I.That the regulation for Complaints by Students (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 205), the regulations for the Review Procedure for Examinations for Undergraduate and Certain Other Qualifications (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 238), and the regulations for Review of the Results of Examinations for Postgraduate Qualifications (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 426), be rescinded and replaced with the regulations for the Consideration of Complaints and Requests for Review by Students as set out in Annex A to this Report.
II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, consequential changes to Ordinance as set out in Annex B to this Report be approved.
1If the recommendations of this Report are approved, the Council would rescind this procedure.
(b)a procedure and explanatory notes for investigating and determining complaints about the University's action or lack of action, or the provision of service by or on behalf of the University.
2. The General Board shall publish and keep under review a procedure and explanatory notes for the review of decisions made by such University bodies as shall be determined from time to time by the General Board.
(b)seek external advice and assistance.
4. The decision at the conclusion of the formal stage following investigation and at the review stage of the procedures under Regulation 1, and at the conclusion of the review procedure under Regulation 2, shall be taken by a University officer who is a member of the academic staff of the University.
5. The procedures under Regulations 1 and 2 shall be concluded by the issue of a letter to the student who brought the complaint or other matter which confirms, in accordance with guidance published from time to time by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, that the University's internal procedures have been exhausted.
(b)complaints or other matters to which other University procedures apply unless otherwise determined by the relevant University officer under Regulations 3 or 4 above.
7. The University will act reasonably in considering complaints and other matters under the procedures, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case. Every effort will be made to ensure that all parties are treated with fairness and dignity. None of those carrying out the procedures will have any previous knowledge of the case or any material connection with any party to the complaint or other matter. In the event of a conflict of interest arising, the Vice-Chancellor shall have power to appoint other University officers to act in place of, and with the same powers as, those appointed under the procedures.
8. If a complaint or other matter is upheld, the University officer who is a member of academic staff under Regulation 4 shall be empowered to require any member of the University and/or any University institution to take such action as the University officer considers necessary. If the member of the University and/or University institution is unable or unwilling to act, the University officer may refer the matter to the competent authority for the institution concerned.
9. The Council and the General Board shall receive a report annually on the number, type, and outcomes of complaints and other matters considered under the procedures, together with any recommendations concerning those procedures.
A student may request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examinations under sub-paragraph (c). A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
A student who is dissatisfied with her or his categorization for the purposes of University Composition Fees may request a review of the decision. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
9. A student may request a review of a decision made under these regulations. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
23. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Faculty Board of Law following application exceptionally for an additional attempt at an examination designated as an Examination for Professional Exemption under Regulation 14. The request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
5. That in the General Regulations for Admission as a Graduate Student (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 421) Regulation 12 be rescinded, the following new Regulation 14 inserted after existing Regulation 14, and the existing regulations renumbered.
14. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Board of Graduate Studies. The request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
28. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine in respect of that student who has applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at a Second M.B., or Final M.B. Examination under Regulations 13 or 21(b); or exceptionally for an extension of time to complete the course under Regulation 20. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
7. That Regulation 15 of the General Regulations for the degree of Master of Studies (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 537) be rescinded and the remaining regulations renumbered.
26. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Faculty Board of Veterinary Medicine in respect of that student who has applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at any Part of the Vet.M.B. Examination under Regulations 11 or 19(c). A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
2.1. This procedure applies where a Registered Student wishes to express dissatisfaction, either about the University's action or lack of action, or the standard of service provided by or on behalf of the University. The University includes all Faculties, Departments, non-School institutions, and administrative offices within the Unified Administrative Service. The procedure has three stages: Local Resolution, Formal Resolution, and Review.
2.2. This procedure also applies to Registered Students who wish to complain directly to the University about a service provided by another organization on behalf of the University, for example, a placement provider.
2.4. The General Board shall approve and keep under review explanatory notes, to be read in conjunction with this procedure. Those notes shall include a policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. Before making a complaint, Complainants should read the procedure and the explanatory notes on the procedure. All Complainants are encouraged to seek support from a College Tutor, a member of the Students' Unions' Advice Service, or other advisor of the student's choosing.
2.5. A Complainant may be invited to attend a meeting under paragraph 3.2, 4.8, and 4.11 as part of this procedure. A Complainant who is invited to attend a meeting will be entitled to choose whether or not to attend the meeting and to be accompanied or represented by someone of the Complainant's choosing.
2.6. This procedure is an internal process and does not have the same degree of formality as proceedings in a court of law. It is not normally necessary or appropriate for Complainants or the University to be legally represented at any meetings that form part of the procedure except in exceptional circumstances.
2.7. This procedure can only be used by a Registered Student who has been affected by the subject matter of the complaint. Complaints should be made by Complainants themselves, although in limited circumstances the University will accept a request from a third party acting as the Complainant's authorized representative. In this circumstance, the University will communicate only with the authorized representative and therefore any reference in this procedure about communication to or from a Complainant includes the Complainant's authorized representative.
2.8. Group complaints can be submitted, but a group representative must be identified with whom the University will correspond and who will be responsible for liaising with the other Complainants. In such cases, references in this procedure to the 'Complainant' shall be construed as referring to more than one person. The University may separate group complaints where it considers that the issues raised impact Complainants differently or where Complainants are seeking different remedies.
2.9. Anonymous complaints will not normally be accepted, as this may limit the investigation and communication of the outcome. Exceptionally, an anonymous complaint may be considered if there is a compelling case, supported by evidence, for the matter to be investigated.
2.10. Complainants will not be disadvantaged for raising a valid complaint. The University will act reasonably in considering complaints under this procedure and decisions will be made fairly and transparently. The Responsible Officer, Case Handler, Complaint Officer, and Reviewer will have had no material involvement in the matters raised as part of the complaint or in the earlier stages of the procedure and will be independent and impartial.
2.11. Any reference in this procedure to a University officer or other named role includes a deputy appointed by that officer or role-holder to exercise the functions assigned to that officer under this procedure.
2.12. Complainants are required to raise a complaint as soon as possible and within the required timeframe (see paragraph 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1). Complaints or evidence submitted outside this timeframe will not be accepted unless there is a valid reason for delay, which will be judged on a case-by-case basis by the Responsible Officer, Case Handler, Complaint Officer, or Reviewer, as appropriate.
2.13. The University aims to process any formal complaint through Formal Resolution and any Review within 90 calendar days. The 90 calendar day timeframe requires Complainants to comply with any timescales set down in this Procedure. There will occasionally be circumstances when, for good reasons, the University will need to extend the timeframe and in these circumstances the Complainant will be notified and kept updated as to the progress of their complaint.
2.14. The University will only share the information and evidence submitted in a complaint with members of staff where it is strictly necessary in order to process, investigate, and consider the complaint. All information received from a Complainant will be handled sensitively and in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Student Complaint Procedure.
2.15. The Case Handler, Complaint Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate consideration of a complaint if it is considered to be frivolous or vexatious. If a complaint is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.16. Complainants, their advisors, and staff of the University are required to communicate respectfully and reasonably at all times whilst using the procedure. Abusive or threatening behaviour and language will not be tolerated. If, following a warning, a Complainant behaves in an unacceptable manner, the Case Handler, the Complaint Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate the Complainant's request without further consideration. If a request is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.17. When using this procedure, Complainants are encouraged to provide details and evidence of any disability and/or any reasonable adjustments which may be appropriate in light of their disability. Where it may be helpful and following the consent of the Complainant, an appropriately trained University staff member may be asked to provide a decision regarding reasonable adjustments.
3.1. Complainants should raise complaints, in writing or in person, with the Institution concerned. It is expected that an issue will be raised as soon as possible and in any event within 28 days of it occurring. Students are normally informed of the name and contact details of the Responsible Officer to approach within handbooks or other written guidance. Where a Complainant is uncertain about the identity of the Responsible Officer, the complaint should be addressed to the person responsible for the management of the service which is the subject of the complaint, or the Head of the Institution.
3.2. The Responsible Officer should respond to the complaint in a timely manner and normally within 21 calendar days of its receipt. The response should be in writing where an investigation has taken place or where the complaint is submitted in writing and should include information about the next stage of the Procedure where the Complainant remains dissatisfied with the response. Where a response cannot be provided within 21 calendar days, the Responsible Officer will write to the Complainant within that period to indicate the reasons for delay and when a response is likely to be provided. The Responsible Officer may invite the Complainant to a meeting as part of an investigation, but is not obliged to hold such a meeting.
(b)the matter of complaint first arising, where the Complainant reasonably considers Local Resolution is inappropriate.
4.2. The Case Handler shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the period of 28 calendar days should run from a later date in recognition of a Complainant's further reasonable attempts at Local Resolution; or whether it is reasonable for the Complainant not to have attempted Local Resolution.
4.3. The complaint should set out the Complainant's concerns clearly and succinctly and provide evidence to substantiate the issues raised. Evidence may include independent medical evidence, reports by professionals, financial information, or witness statements.
(d)the Complainant should attempt Local Resolution before investigation of the complaint under this stage of the procedure.
4.5. Where a determination is made under paragraphs 4.4(b)–(d), the reasons for this and information about the options available to the Complainant will be provided in writing within 7 calendar days. If the Complainant disagrees with the determination under paragraph 4.4, the reasons for the disagreement should be provided by the Complainant, in writing and within 7 calendar days of receiving the decision, to the Head of OSCCA who will review the determination within a further 14 calendar days. Where a complaint cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued. Where matters raised within the complaint would be more appropriately considered under alternative University procedures, the Case Handler will inform the Complainant about which matters will be considered under which procedure. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to suspend one procedure pending the completion of another.
4.6. Some requests may require the University to take swift action, for example where the issues raised have detrimental consequences for the Complainant's mental health or where external time limits apply, for example, in meeting regulatory requirements for the completion of courses. If this is the case, this procedure may be expedited.
4.7. Where a determination is made under paragraph 4.4(a) the Complainant will be informed and the Case Handler will conduct an investigation, requiring written statements and evidence from witnesses and Institutions concerning the events and applicable procedures, as appropriate.
4.8. A Case Handler may or may not meet individually with the Complainant, the Responsible Officer, or witnesses as part of the investigation, or collect further evidence, at the Case Handler's discretion and where the Case Handler believes it to be beneficial to do so.
4.9. The Case Handler shall prepare a report setting out the process that has been followed, the information that has been gathered, the conclusions that have been drawn, and any recommendations. The Case Handler should also consider whether mediation or conciliation might be effective at this stage.
4.10. Following investigation, the Case Handler will provide all of the materials to a Complaint Officer, appointed by the Case Handler from a panel of Complaint Officers maintained by the Council.
4.11. The Complaint Officer will consider all of the materials provided. In exceptional circumstances the Complaint Officer may request further written statements, hold a meeting with any individual involved in the complaint, and/or hold a hearing. The Complainant will receive all of the materials considered by the Complaint Officer at least 7 calendar days an advance of any meeting or hearing.
iii. the Complainant has not been substantively disadvantaged by any variation in the University's procedures or written documentation.
4.13. The Complainant will receive confirmation in writing of the Complaint Officer's decision, the reasons for the decision, and copies of the material considered by the Complaint Officer, normally within 45 calendar days of having submitted the Formal Resolution form.
4.14. Regardless of the decision made, the Complaint Officer may make observations and recommendations to Institutions for consideration following the outcome of a complaint.
5.1. If a Complainant is dissatisfied following the Formal Resolution decision, the Complainant can submit a Request for Review form within 14 calendar days of the Formal Resolution decision being communicated. Alternatively, if the Complainant is dissatisfied with the decision but does not believe the reasons for the dissatisfaction would meet the grounds for a Review, the Complainant can request a Completion of Procedure letter.
(c)the availability of new evidence, which materially impacts the complaint outcome and which, for valid reasons, could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.
5.3. If the request for Review has been made on the specified grounds and within the timeframe, as determined by OSCCA, OSCCA will appoint a Reviewer from a panel of Reviewers appointed by the Council to consider the request for Review. Where a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
5.4. The Reviewer will consider the Complainant's request, the information considered during Formal Resolution, the decision, and any new information. The Reviewer may request further information.
(b)dismiss the request for Review and confirm the Complaint Officer's decision.
5.6. The Complainant will receive the Reviewer's decision and the reasons for the decision, in writing, normally within 28 calendar days of submitting the Request for Review form. This is the final stage of the University's internal process and therefore the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
6.1. OSCCA will monitor all complaints and decisions made under the procedure and will produce an annual report summarizing the anonymized decisions, remedies, and recommendations (including the implementation of these) made by Complaint Officers and Reviewers. Students' Unions' sabbatical officers will be invited to provide feedback on the annual report. The annual report will be submitted to the General Board's Education Committee.
1Examination Review Procedure, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 000 [as proposed in this Report, p. 637]; Review of decisions of the Applications Committee of the Council, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 109; Regulation 12 of the General Regulations for Admission as a Graduate Student, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 421; or Regulation 15 of the General Regulations for the M.St. Degree, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 537; Review of decisions of University bodies procedure, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 000 [as proposed in this Report, p. 642].
2Discipline, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 191; procedure for handling student cases of harassment and sexual misconduct, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 000 [as approved by Grace 3 of 22 February 2017]; procedure to determine fitness to study, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 225; procedures to determine fitness to practise of preclinical and clinical medical students, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 207; procedures to determine fitness to practise of preclinical and clinical veterinary students, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 215.
These notes should be read in conjunction with the Student Complaint Procedure. If there is any conflict between these notes and the procedure, the procedure takes precedence.
The paragraph numbers used within this document correspond with the paragraph numbers in the version of the procedure approved on [date].
(c)the behaviour of University staff.
2.3. The Case Handler will consider these matters in accordance with paragraph 4.4(b).
2.6. In order to ensure that a Complainant's views are accurately represented it is preferable for the University to correspond directly with the Complainant. However, it is accepted that sometimes this will not be in the best interests of the Complainant, for example, where a Complainant is reluctant to make or receive decisions about a complaint without support, as a result of an underlying medical condition. Where a Complainant would prefer correspondence to be directed through an authorized representative, permission needs to be provided by the Complainant in writing or via a University email account.
2.12. All Complainants using the procedure will need to comply with the prescribed timescales, which enable effective remedies to be provided (such as a change of supervisor or clarification of course guidance) without further disadvantage to the Complainant. Complaints received outside of the permitted timeframe will only be accepted where there is valid reason for the delay, supported by evidence. Revising, studying, seeking advice, or waiting to find out whether academic results have been affected, will not normally be accepted as sufficient reason for delay.
2.15. Examples of vexatious complaints are those which are obsessive, harassing, or repetitive; insist on pursuing unrealistic or unreasonable outcomes and/or requests which are designed to cause disruption or annoyance.
2.16. Unacceptable behaviour includes unreasonable persistence, unreasonable demands, lack of co-operation, or any aggression or threat of aggression.
2.17. The University has a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in certain circumstances. Complainants who require further information about reasonable adjustments should contact the Disability Resource Centre at http://www.disability.admin.cam.ac.uk. When notified of a disability under the procedure, the University will always consider whether reasonable adjustments are required. These will be assessed for each individual and in accordance with the University's 'Code of Practice: reasonable adjustments for disabled students' available at http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/final_cop_2016-17_for_disabled_students_2.pdf.
3.1. Genuine attempts at Local Resolution include asking for an explanation or a solution regarding an issue that has arisen. Repeated requests to the Institution to reconsider its detailed response to a complaint are not considered genuine attempts at Local Resolution. This type of correspondence will be discounted when calculating a Complainant's timeframe to submit a complaint for Formal Resolution and will therefore shorten the time available for submission or cause a complaint to be considered out of time (see paragraph 4.1).
4.1. The Complainant may be dissatisfied with the outcome of the consideration of the complaint by the Responsible Officer or with a failure to resolve the complaint at Local Resolution within a reasonable timeframe.
The Case Handler will accept a complaint for Formal Resolution without evidence of any attempt at Local Resolution if the complaint raises serious or systemic issues that cannot be addressed at Local Resolution.
(f)agreement that in order to consider the complaint under the Procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Complainant as detailed in the Policy on the use of personal information under the Student Complaints Procedure.
4.8. Where a Case Handler or Complaint Officer holds a meeting with the Complainant, the Responsible Officer, or a witness, a note-taker will be present. The notes taken will be presented to those in attendance at the meeting for factual clarification, following which the notes will become the formal record of the meeting.
4.12. The appropriate decision will depend entirely upon the nature of the complaint and the relevant remedies available. If, following investigation, it becomes apparent that the complaint was malicious then action may be taken in accordance with the Discipline regulations.
4.12. (a) If mediation is recommended there is no requirement for parties to participate; this may be offered, but can only go ahead if all parties are in agreement.
(f)agreement that in order to consider the complaint under the Procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Complainant in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Student Complaints Procedure.
5.6. If a Complainant chooses to raise a complaint with the OIA, the Reviewer's decision will still be enacted unless a review outcome from the OIA recommends otherwise.
6.1. There is student membership on the General Board's Education Committee.
A copy is to be provided to the Complainant at the earliest contact and published on the University's website.
Documentation generated in the course of an investigation under the procedure will be disclosed in full to the Complainant except where information relates to an individual who has not consented to the disclosure of personal data.
2. The University will seek the Complainant's written consent before notifying the Complainant's College Tutor or Graduate Tutor that a complaint has been submitted so that they are aware of the complaint and able to assist in providing support.
3. The University will seek the Complainant's written consent before liaising with appropriate staff members, including staff of the Disability Resource Centre, regarding support and any reasonable adjustments for disabled students.
4. Following completion of the procedure, the complaint, the documentation generated in the course of the investigation, and the decisions made under the procedure, will be retained securely by the Head of OSCCA for six years following the completion of the complaint. This information will be used for the purposes of responding to any complaints regarding the application of this procedure as well as for compiling anonymous statistics regarding its use. Further, where any complaint is subsequently submitted under this procedure by the same Complainant, this information may be taken into account by the Case Handler, in reaching a decision under paragraph 4.4 or 4.11 of the procedure. The information may also be provided to the University Advocate or other relevant officer if relevant for the purposes of conducting disciplinary proceedings or referral for consideration under another procedure under paragraph 4.4 or 4.11 of this procedure.
5. Nothing in this policy is intended to prejudice any rights of access to personal data which any person may have under data protection legislation as applicable at the time or otherwise.
6. Any questions or concerns about this policy should be directed to the Head of OSCCA in the first instance.
2.1. This procedure applies where a Candidate submits a request for the reconsideration of Examination Results. The procedure has two formal stages: Reconsideration of Examination Results; and Review (see Sections 4 and 5). There is also an informal preliminary stage available for requests for the consideration of irregularities in the examination process from Candidates for examinations listed in the Schedule to the General Regulations for Examiners and Assessors1 (see Section 3).
(c)(For Candidates for the degrees listed in the Schedule to this procedure) serious illness or other grave cause which has clearly impacted upon the examination itself and of which, for sufficient reason, the Examining Body was not aware.
(c)Teaching or supervision arrangements, complaints regarding which, if organized by the College should be submitted under the College's complaints procedure, or if organized by the University should be submitted under the Student Complaints Procedure.
2.4. The General Board shall approve and keep under review explanatory notes, to be read in conjunction with this procedure. Those notes shall include a policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. Before requesting reconsideration of Examination Results, Candidates should read the procedure and the explanatory notes on the procedure. All Candidates are encouraged to seek support from a College Tutor, a member of the Students' Unions' Advice Service, or other advisor of the student's choosing. Candidates may also choose to discuss the matter informally with their Tutor. Requests for reconsideration of Examination Results should be made by Candidates themselves, although in limited circumstances the University will accept a request from a third party acting as the Candidate's authorized representative. In this circumstance the University will communicate only with the authorized representative and therefore any reference in this procedure about communication to or from a Candidate includes the Candidate's authorized representative.
2.5. This procedure is an internal process and does not have the same degree of formality as proceedings in a court of law. It is not normally necessary or appropriate for Candidates or the University to be legally represented at any meetings that form part of the procedure except in exceptional circumstances.
2.6. Candidates will not be disadvantaged for raising a valid request for reconsideration of Examination Results. The University will act reasonably in considering requests under this procedure and decisions will be made fairly and transparently. The Case Handler, the Examination Review Officer, and the Reviewer will have had no material involvement in the matters raised as part of the complaint or in earlier stages of the procedure and will be independent and impartial.
2.7. Any reference in this procedure to a University officer or other named role includes a deputy appointed by that officer or role-holder to exercise the functions assigned to that officer under this procedure.
2.8. Candidates are required to request a reconsideration of Examination Results as soon as possible and within 28 days of the Examination Results becoming available. A request for reconsideration of Examination Results or evidence submitted outside this timeframe will not be accepted unless there is a sufficient reason for delay, which will be judged on a case-by case basis by the Case Handler or the Reviewer, as appropriate.
2.9. The University aims to provide a written response concluding this procedure within 90 calendar days of receipt of a formal request for reconsideration of Examination Results (including any Review). The 90 calendar day timeframe requires Candidates to comply with any timescales set down in this procedure. There will occasionally be circumstances when, for good reasons, the Case Handler, Examination Review Officer, or Reviewer will need to extend the timeframe, and in these circumstances the Candidate will be notified and kept updated as to the progress of their request.
2.10. The University will only share the information and evidence submitted in a request for review with members of staff where it is strictly necessary in order to process, investigate, and consider requests made using this procedure. All information received from a Candidate will be handled sensitively and in accordance with the policy on the use of personal information under this procedure.
2.11. The Case Handler, the Examination Review Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate the reconsideration of Examination Results or Review if it is considered to be frivolous or vexatious. If a request is terminated then the Candidate will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.12. Candidates, their advisors, and staff of the University are required to communicate respectfully and to behave reasonably at all times whilst using the procedure. Abusive or threatening behaviour and language will not be tolerated. If, following a warning, a Candidate continues to behave in an unacceptable manner, the Case Handler, Examination Review Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate the reconsideration of Examination Results or Review without further consideration. If a request is terminated then the Candidate will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.13. When using this procedure, Candidates are encouraged to provide details and evidence of any disability and/or any reasonable adjustments which may be appropriate in light of their disability. Where it may be helpful and following the consent of the Candidate, an appropriately trained University staff member may be asked to provide a decision regarding reasonable adjustments.
3.1. This informal stage applies only to requests for the consideration of irregularities in the examination process received from Candidates for examinations listed in the Schedule to the General Regulations for Examiners and Assessors.
3.2. Where a Candidate becomes aware of an irregularity, this should be reported within 5 calendar days of the examination to the Student Registry using the Representations to the Examiners form.
3.3. Where a form is received by the Student Registry, or the Student Registry becomes aware of an irregularity, it shall be communicated to the Chair of Examiners and considered by the Examiners at their final meeting. Following consideration, the Examiners shall take whatever action they think fit in the light of the representations. The consideration of the form and any action that has been taken will be recorded in the minutes of the Examiners' meeting.
3.4. The Chair of Examiners shall communicate the outcome of any review under this section of the procedure to the Student Registry who will confirm the outcome to the affected Candidates.
3.5. Due to the short timeframe between the examinations taking place and confirmation of the list of successful candidates, Candidates are not required to raise irregularities before receiving their Examination Results and may request reconsideration of Examination Results (Section 4 of this procedure) if the Examiners have not previously considered the matter under this informal stage.
4.1. Candidates may request reconsideration of their Examination Results by submitting the Examination Review form to OSCCA within 28 calendar days of receiving notification of their Examination Results (which may be communicated via their electronic student record).
(c)the request is ineligible to be considered by the University, for example because it is out of time, questions academic judgement, or is vexatious.
4.3. Where a determination is made under paragraphs 4.2(b) and (c), the reasons for this and information about the options available to the Candidate will be provided in writing within 7 calendar days. Where matters raised within the request would be more appropriately considered under alternative University procedures, the Case Handler will inform the Candidate about which matters will be considered under which procedure. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to suspend this procedure pending the completion of another.
4.4. If the Candidate disagrees with the determination under paragraph 4.2, the reasons for disagreement should be provided by the Candidate, in writing and within 7 calendar days of receiving the decision, to the Head of OSCCA who will review the determination within 14 calendar days. Where, in the opinion of the Head of OSCCA, a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
4.5. Some requests may require the University to take swift action, for example where the issues raised have detrimental consequences for the Candidate's mental health or where external time limits apply for example in meeting regulatory requirements for the completion of courses. If this is the case, this procedure may be expedited.
4.6. Where a determination is made under paragraph 4.2(a) the Candidate will be informed and the Case Handler will conduct an investigation, requiring a factual statement and any relevant evidence from the Chair of the Examining Body.
4.7. Following receipt of the evidence requested, the Case Handler will provide all of the materials to an Examination Review Officer, appointed by the Case Handler from a panel of Examination Review Officers appointed by the Board of Examinations or nominated by the Chair of the Board of Graduate Studies.
4.8. The Examination Review Officer will consider all of the materials provided. In exceptional circumstances the Examination Review Officer may request further written statements and/or will have discretion to hold a meeting or hearing.
(v)to require the Examining Body to set the Candidate new examination papers or other assessments.
(c)dismiss the Candidate's request where it is found that none of the grounds under has been met.
4.10. The Candidate will receive confirmation in writing of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and copies of the evidence considered by the Examination Review Officer, normally within 45 calendar days of having submitted the Examination Review form.
4.11. Regardless of the decision made, the Examination Review Officer may make observations and recommendations to the Examining Body for consideration following the outcome of a review of Examination Results.
5.1. If a Candidate remains dissatisfied following the decision of the Examination Review Officer, the Candidate can submit a Request for Review form within 14 calendar days of the decision being communicated. Alternatively, if the Candidate is dissatisfied with the decision but does not believe the reasons for the dissatisfaction would meet the grounds for a Review under paragraph 5.2, the Candidate can request a Completion of Procedures letter.
(c)the availability of new evidence, which materially impacts on the Examination Review Officer's decision and which, for valid reasons, could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.
5.3. If the request for Review has been made on the specified grounds and within the timeframe, as determined by OSCCA, OSCCA will appoint a Reviewer from a panel of Reviewers appointed by the Council, to consider the request for Review. Where a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
5.4. The Reviewer will consider the Candidate's request for Review, the information considered by the Examination Review Officer and the decision reached by the Examination Review Officer, including the consideration of whether any of the grounds under paragraph 2.2 have been met. The Reviewer may request further information.
(b)dismiss the request for Review and confirm the decision of the Examination Review Officer (and/or the decision of the Board of Graduate Studies under paragraph 4.9(a), as appropriate).
5.6. The Candidate will receive the Reviewer's decision and the reasons for the decision in writing, normally within 28 calendar days of submitting the Request for Review form. This is the final stage of the University's internal process and therefore the Candidate will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
6.1. OSCCA will monitor all reconsiderations of Examination Results and decisions made under the procedure and will produce an annual report summarizing the anonymized decisions, remedies, and recommendations (including the implementation of these) made by the relevant University bodies and Reviewers. Students' Unions' sabbatical officers will be invited to provide feedback on the annual report. The annual report will be submitted to the General Board's Education Committee.
1Statutes and Ordinances, p. 241.
These notes should be read in conjunction with the Examination Review Procedure. If there is any conflict between these notes and the procedure, the procedure takes precedence.
2.1. For the purposes of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, this is an academic appeal procedure.
2.2. See paragraphs 4.9 and 5.4.
2.4. See the policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. In order to ensure that a Candidate's views are accurately represented it is preferable for the University to correspond directly with the Candidate. However, it is accepted that sometimes this will not be in the best interests of the Candidate, for example, where a Candidate is reluctant to make or receive decisions about their request for review without support, as a result of an underlying medical condition. Where Candidates would prefer correspondence to be directed through an authorized representative, permission needs to be provided by the Candidate in writing or via a University email account.
2.8. All Candidates using the procedure will need to comply with the prescribed timescales, which enable effective remedies to be provided (such as re-examination or re-submission where a retained knowledge of the examination is required) without further disadvantage. Requests received outside of the permitted timeframe will only be accepted where there is a valid reason for the delay, supported by evidence. Revising, studying, or seeking advice will not normally be accepted as sufficient reason for delay.
2.11. Examples of vexatious requests are those which are obsessive, harassing, or repetitive; insist on pursuing unrealistic or unreasonable outcomes; and/or requests which are designed to cause disruption or annoyance.
2.12. Unacceptable behaviour includes unreasonable persistence, unreasonable demands, lack of co-operation, or any aggression or threat of aggression.
2.13. The University has a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in certain circumstances. Candidates who require further information about reasonable adjustments should contact the Disability Resource Centre at http://www.disability.admin.cam.ac.uk. When notified of a disability under the procedure, the University will always consider whether reasonable adjustments are required. These will be assessed for each individual and in accordance with the University's 'Code of Practice: reasonable adjustments for disabled students' available at http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/final_cop_2016-17_for_disabled_students_2.pdf. Such reasonable adjustments for disabled students might include but are not limited to allowing a Candidate to appoint a representative to correspond and make decisions about a request for review on the Candidate's behalf.
3.4. Such communication will help to minimize requests for reconsideration of Examination Results by affected Candidates simply because they are unaware of action already taken by the Examining Body.
•agreement that in order to consider the request under the procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Candidate as detailed in the policy on the use of personal information under this procedure.
4.9. The Examination Review Officer will normally make contact with the Chair of the Examining Body, and the Chair may decide to consult with that body before submitting a response to the request for reconsideration of Examination Results. The appropriate remedy will depend on the circumstances of the case. If, following investigation, it becomes apparent that the request was malicious then action may be taken under the University's disciplinary procedure.
•agreement that in order to consider the request under the procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Candidate as detailed in the policy on the use of personal information under the Examination Review Procedure.
5.2. This will normally be a paper-based review which considers the evidence received by the Examination Review Officer.
5.6. If, on receipt of a Completion of Procedures letter, a Candidate chooses to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) (or seek a remedy in a court of law), it will not have the effect of suspending the Reviewer's decision, which will still be enacted unless the OIA (or a court of law) requires the University to do otherwise.
6.1. There is student membership on the General Board and on the General Board's Education Committee.
A copy is to be provided to the Candidate at the earliest contact and published on the University's website.
Documentation generated in the course of an investigation under the procedure will be disclosed in full to the Candidate except where information relates to an individual who has not consented to the disclosure of personal data.
2. The University will seek the Candidate's written consent before notifying the Candidate's College Tutor or Graduate Tutor that a request for examination review has been submitted so that they are aware of the request and able to assist in providing support.
3. The University will seek the Candidate's written consent before liaising with appropriate staff members, including staff of the Disability Resource Centre, regarding support and any reasonable adjustments for disabled students.
4. Following completion of the procedure, the request for review, the documentation generated in the course of the investigation, and the decisions made under the procedure, will be retained securely by the Head of OSCCA for six years following the completion of a request for reconsideration of Examination Results or Review. This information will be used for the purposes of responding to any complaints regarding the application of this procedure as well as for compiling anonymous statistics regarding its use. Further, where any request for review is subsequently submitted under this procedure by the same Candidate, this information may be taken into account by the Case Handler, in reaching a decision under paragraph 4.2 of the procedure (or review of that decision by the Head of OSCCA under paragraph 4.4). The information may also be provided to the University Advocate or other relevant officer if relevant for the purposes of conducting disciplinary proceedings or referral for consideration under another procedure.
A trained member of academic staff who decides whether a complaint is upheld or dismissed.
2.1. This procedure applies where a person who has received a decision listed in the Schedules to this procedure wishes a review of the decision to be undertaken. The Procedure has one stage: Review.
(c)the availability of new evidence, which materially impacts on the outcome and which, for valid reasons, could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.
2.3. The General Board shall approve and keep under review explanatory notes, to be read in conjunction with this procedure. Those notes shall include a Policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. Before making a request for Review, Complainants should read the procedure and the explanatory notes on the procedure. All Complainants are encouraged to seek support from a College Tutor, a member of the Students' Unions' Advice Service, or other advisor of the student's choosing.
2.4. This procedure is an internal process and does not have the same degree of formality as proceedings in a court of law. It is not normally necessary or appropriate for Complainants or the University to be legally represented at any meetings that form part of the procedure except in exceptional circumstances.
2.5. This procedure can only be used by the person who has received a decision listed in the Schedules. The request for Review can only be made by the Complainant themselves, although in limited circumstances the University will accept a request from a third party acting as the Complainant's authorized representative. In this circumstance the University will communicate only with the authorized representative and therefore any reference in this procedure about communication to or from a Complainant includes the Complainant's authorized representative.
2.6. Complainants will not be disadvantaged for raising a valid complaint. The University will act reasonably in considering requests under this procedure and decisions will be made fairly and transparently. The Case Handler and the Reviewer will have had no material involvement in the matters raised as part of the complaint or in earlier stages of the procedure and will be independent and impartial.
2.8. Complainants are required to raise requests for Review as soon as possible and within 14 calendar days of the decision to be reviewed being communicated. Requests or evidence submitted outside of this timeframe will not be accepted unless there is a valid reason for delay, which will be judged on a case-by-case basis by the Case Handler or Reviewer, as appropriate.
2.9. The University aims to process any request for Review within 90 calendar days. The 90 calendar day timeframe requires Complainants to comply with any timescales set down in this procedure. There will occasionally be circumstances when, for good reasons, the University will need to extend the timeframe and in these circumstances the Complainant will be notified and kept updated as to the progress of their request.
2.10. The University will only share the information and evidence submitted in a request for Review with members of staff where it is strictly necessary in order to process, investigate, and consider the request for Review. All information received from a Complainant will be handled sensitively and in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Review of Decisions of University Bodies procedure.
2.11. The Case Handler or the Reviewer may terminate a Review if it is considered to be frivolous or vexatious. If a Review is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.12. Complainants, their advisors, and staff of the University are required to communicate respectfully and to behave reasonably at all times whilst using the procedure. Abusive or threatening behaviour and language will not be tolerated. If, following a warning, a Complainant behaves in an unacceptable manner, a Reviewer may terminate the Complainant's Review without further consideration. If a request is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.13. When using this procedure, Complainants are encouraged to provide details and evidence of any disability and/or any reasonable adjustments which may be appropriate in light of their disability. Where it may be helpful and following the consent of the Complainant, an appropriately trained University staff member may be asked to provide a decision regarding reasonable adjustments.
3.1. If a Complainant is dissatisfied following a decision listed within the Schedules to this procedure, the Complainant can submit a Request for Review form within 14 calendar days of the decision being communicated. Alternatively, if the Complainant is dissatisfied with the decision but does not believe the reasons for the dissatisfaction would meet the grounds for a Review, the Complainant can request a Completion of Procedure letter.
3.2. If the request for Review has been made on the specified grounds and within the timeframe, as determined by the Case Handler, OSCCA will appoint a Reviewer from a panel of Reviewers appointed by the Council to consider the request for Review. Where a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
3.3. The Reviewer will consider the Complainant's request, the information considered in reaching the decision, the decision itself, and any new information. The Reviewer may request further information.
•dismiss the request for Review and confirm the original decision.
3.5. The Complainant will receive the Reviewer's decision and the reasons for the decision, in writing, normally within 28 calendar days of submitting the Request for Review form. This is the final stage of the University's internal process and therefore the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
4.1. OSCCA will monitor all reviews of decisions made under the procedure and will produce an annual report summarizing anonymized decisions, remedies, and recommendations (including the implementation of these) made by Reviewers. Students' Unions' sabbatical officers will be invited to provide feedback on the annual report. The annual report will be submitted to the General Board's Education Committee.
(b)its powers in respect of allowances of terms (exceptional permission to go out of residence, permission to return into residence, and allowance of terms for the purpose of being in standing to take examinations or proceed to the B.A. Degree) under the regulations for Residence and the Precincts of the University.
Decisions of the Board of Graduate Studies taken in respect of individual students in the exercise of its powers.
Decisions taken on behalf of the Board of Graduate Studies in respect of individual students where, following consideration, those decisions have been ratified by the Board of Graduate Studies.
Decisions of the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine taken in respect of individual students who have applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at a Second M.B. or Final M.B. Examination under Regulations 13 or 21(b), or who have applied exceptionally for an extension of time to complete the course under Regulation 20 of the regulations for the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery.
Decisions of the Faculty Board of Veterinary Medicine in respect of individual students who have applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at any Part of the Vet.M.B. examination under Regulations 11 or 19(c) of the regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine.
Decisions of the Board of Examinations in respect of candidates who for special reasons apply to be examined under conditions other than the ordinary conditions, or at other times than those previously advertised, or in respect of the conditions under which such permission is given or withheld.
Decisions of the General Board in respect of an individual candidate in exercise of its powers regarding reasonable adjustments.
Decisions of the Faculty Board of Law concerning applications exceptionally for an additional attempt at an examination designated as an Examination for Professional Exemption under Regulation 14 of the regulations for the Law Tripos.
Decisions not to allow a student who has completed the requirement of the B.A. Degree to progress to that Part of a Tripos required for the M.Eng. or the M.Math. or the M.Sci. Degree.
These notes should be read in conjunction with the Review of Decisions of University Bodies Procedure. If there is any conflict between these notes and the procedure, the procedure takes precedence.
2.3. In order to ensure that a Complainant's views are accurately represented it is preferable for the University to correspond directly with the Complainant. However, it is accepted that sometimes this will not be in the best interests of the Complainant, for example, where a Complainant is reluctant to make or receive decisions about their request for Review without support, as a result of an underlying medical condition. Where Complainants would prefer correspondence to be directed through an authorized representative, permission needs to be provided by the Complainant in writing or via a University email account.
2.8. All Complainants using the procedure will need to comply with the prescribed timescales, which enable effective remedies to be provided (such as amendment to decisions made regarding examination conditions or allowances) without further disadvantage. Requests received outside of the permitted timeframe will only be accepted where there is valid reason for the delay, supported by evidence. Revising, studying, or seeking advice will not normally be accepted as sufficient reason for delay.
2.13. The University has a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in certain circumstances. Complainants who require further information about reasonable adjustments should contact the Disability Resource Centre at http://www.disability.admin.cam.ac.uk. When notified of a disability under the procedure, the University will always consider whether reasonable adjustments are required. These will be assessed for each individual and in accordance with the University's 'Code of Practice: reasonable adjustments for disabled students' available at http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/final_cop_2016-17_for_disabled_students_2.pdf.
(f)agreement that in order to consider the request under the procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Complainant in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Review of Decisions Procedure.
3.5. If a Complainant chooses to raise a complaint with the OIA, the Reviewer's decision will still be enacted unless a review outcome from the OIA recommends otherwise.
4.1. There is student membership on the General Board's Education Committee.
2. The University will seek the Complainant's written consent before notifying the Complainant's College Tutor or Graduate Tutor that a request for Review has been submitted so that they are aware of the request and able to assist in providing support.
4. Following completion of the procedure, the request for review, the documentation generated in the course of the investigation, and the decisions made under the procedure, will be retained securely by the Head of OSCCA for six years following the completion of a request for Review. This information will be used for the purposes of responding to any complaints regarding the application of this procedure as well as for compiling anonymous statistics regarding its use. Further, where any request for review is subsequently submitted under this procedure by the same Complainant, this information may be taken into account by the Case Handler, in reaching a decision under paragraph 2.10 of the procedure. The information may also be provided to the University Advocate or other relevant officer, if relevant for the purposes of conducting disciplinary proceedings or referral for consideration under another procedure under paragraph 2.10, 3.2, or 3.4 of this procedure.
1. The senior academic promotions exercise in respect of promotions to take effect from 1 October 2017 has been completed. The General Board, at its meeting on 7 June 2017, considered recommendations from the Main Senior Academic Promotions Committee in respect of promotion to personal Professorships, Readerships, and Senior Lectureships. With the recommendations the Board received an extensive report, which provided the Board with an account of the procedure followed for the evaluation and comparison of the evidence for all applicants. The Board was able to see how recommendations had been arrived at so that, without repeating the entire exercise, it could either approve the recommendations or, if it so wished, consider the basis on which any of the recommendations had been made.
4. The Board also proposes the establishment of 60 Readerships from 1 October 2017, as set out in Recommendation II. The establishment of these Readerships is proposed on condition that, with the exception of Dr Stella Panayotova, in each case where the person currently holds a permanently established office, that office should be placed in abeyance during the tenure of the Readership. In proposing the establishment of a Readership for Dr Panayotova, the Board has agreed that it should be tenable for so long as Dr Panayotova continues to hold the office of Keeper of the Fitzwilliam Museum. The Board has accordingly agreed to recommend, under the provisions of Statute C I 7, that Dr Panayotova should hold her current office concurrently with the proposed Readership.
5. In order to avoid delay in publishing the Report, the Board has put forward its recommendations before the titles of the Professorships and Readerships have been agreed. The Board will announce these titles at a later date, after consultation with the individuals concerned.
6. The Board has also agreed, in accordance with Special Ordinance C (ix) 1 and the special regulation for University Senior Lectureships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 735) to appoint the 23 individuals listed in the Schedule to this Report to University Senior Lectureships.
7. The estimated total additional cost to central funds in the first year of the proposals for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships and of the appointments to University Senior Lectureships of the persons named in this Report will be approximately £935,245.
* For so long as she holds the office of Keeper of the Fitzwilliam Museum.
1Included under the Sub-Committee for Arts and Humanities in the statistical summary.
The General Board has agreed to appoint the following to University Senior Lectureships, with effect from 1 October 2017 to the retiring age.
Attached as Annex A to this Report is a statistical summary of the number of successful and unsuccessful applications for promotions by Professorships, Readerships, and Senior Lectureships.
1. The General Board recommends the re-establishment of a Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Professorship of Finance as set out in paragraph 2 below. The funding arrangements were approved by the Resource Management Committee by circulation on 10 May 2017.
2. The Board has accepted an academic case from the Faculty Board of Business and Management and the Council of the School of Technology for the re‑establishment for a single tenure, from 1 October 2017, of a Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Professorship of Finance in the Judge Business School. The salary costs of the Professorship will be funded from the capital and income of the Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fund for Finance (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 797) and any shortfall will be met from existing resources available to the Judge Business School. The Professorship was originally established, by Grace 4 of 18 July 2007, for a ten-year period from 1 October 2007. It is proposed that the holder of the re-established Professorship will be Professor Raghavendra Rau, the current holder of the Professorship, who was appointed from 1 March 2011 until retirement.
I. That a Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Professorship of Finance be established in the University, for a single tenure for Professor Raghavendra Rau from 1 October 2017, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Judge Business School.
1. This Report proposes that the six Departments within the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages (French; German and Dutch; Italian; Slavonic Studies; Spanish and Portuguese; Theoretical and Applied Linguistics) should be dissolved, their members remaining part of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages.
2. The recommendations of this Report are supported by the General Board, its Education Committee, the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities, and the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages. There has been wide consultation on the proposals and they are supported by the staff of the individual Departments within the Faculty.
3. A Learning and Teaching Review of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages completed in 2014–15 noted the high quality of teaching within the Faculty and made a number of specific recommendations, including a recommendation that the governance structure of the Faculty should be reviewed, with support and guidance from the General Board and the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities. A working party was established in 2015 by the General Board's Education Committee with the aim of implementing the outcomes of the Learning and Teaching Review. The working party, chaired by Professor Steve Connor of the Faculty of English, reported its recommendations to the Education Committee on 10 May 2017.
4. The proposed reorganization of the Faculty will enable the Faculty Board to take a more strategic view of its finances and planning, and make more effective use of the Faculty's administrative staff and other resources, by consolidating administrative functions at Faculty level, whilst retaining distinct processes where there are perceived benefits.
5. Arrangements have been agreed to smooth the transition to the new structure. No new Heads of Departments will be appointed from 1 October 2017 and instead Directors in each language/subject area will be appointed, who will serve on the Faculty's Planning and Resources and Research Strategy Committees, and on the Faculty Board. The other duties of Heads of Departments will be distributed amongst other roles, including officers with responsibility for undergraduate and graduate teaching and examining.
6. It has been agreed by the Faculty Board and with the constituent Departments within the Faculty that the Faculty should be renamed to reflect the presence of linguistics within the Faculty. Once further consultation has taken place and the new name of the Faculty has been agreed, the Faculty Board will submit a proposal to the General Board for the renaming of the Faculty.
7. The General Board is satisfied that these changes will provide better support to the Faculty's research endeavours, the teaching of the Modern and Medieval Languages, History and Modern Languages, and Linguistics Triposes, and the conduct of graduate studies within the Faculty. There shall continue to be one Degree Committee for the Faculty.
I. That, with effect from 1 October 2017, the six Departments within the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages (French, German and Dutch, Italian, Slavonic Studies, Spanish and Portuguese, and Theoretical and Applied Linguistics) be dissolved.
II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, with effect from the same date consequential changes as set out in the Annex to this Report be approved.
B. In the Special Regulations for Professors and Professorships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 677) by replacing references to the assignment of the Professorships to the individual Departments with references to the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages.
C. In the regulations for Payments Additional to Stipend (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 669), by removing the references to the individual Departments from the Schedules.
2. The Managers of the Fund shall be three persons appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages in the Michaelmas Term to serve for two years from 1 January following their appointment, one of whom shall be appointed Chair from among the teaching officers in Slavonic Studies in the Faculty.
2. The Managers of the Fund shall be four persons appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages for such period as the Board shall determine; three shall be teaching officers in German in the Faculty, one of whom shall be appointed Chair, and one shall be a teaching officer in the Faculty.
2. The administration of the Fund shall be entrusted to four Electors who shall be four persons appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages in the Michaelmas Term to serve for three years from 1 January following their appointment, one of whom shall be appointed Chair from among the teaching officers in Spanish in the Faculty. Three Electors shall form a quorum.
The Electors shall be the Managers of the German Endowment Fund.
2. The Managers of the Fund shall be the Chair of the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages or her or his deputy, a teaching officer in Slavonic Studies, and one other person appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages in the Michaelmas Term to serve for five years from 1 January following her or his appointment provided that, if the Chair of the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages is a teaching officer in Slavonic Studies and is serving as a Manager, the Faculty Board shall instead appoint one additional Manager who is not a teaching officer in Slavonic Studies. The Managers may co-opt up to two more Managers as required. Co-opted Managers shall serve until 31 December of the year following that in which they are co-opted.
4. After provision has been made in accordance with Regulation 3, the income of the Fund shall be applied to support related activities in Slavonic Studies, at the discretion of the Managers.
2. The Fund shall be administered by the Managers of the Ukrainian Studies Endowment Fund.
1. Following the recommendations made in the Learning and Teaching Review of the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science in Lent Term 2016, this Report proposes that the governance arrangements for the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology within the Faculty be revised to re-establish a Department of Social Anthropology, and to rename the existing Department of Archaeology and Anthropology as the Department of Archaeology. The new Department of Social Anthropology would include the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology as a sub-department, and the retitled Department of Archaeology would incorporate the existing Division of Biological Anthropology and continue to include the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
2. The Review Committee submitted a report which was considered by the General Board in December 2016. The Review Committee made a number of recommendations which the General Board accepted. The recommendations of this Report have been the subject of extensive consideration by the Council of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, which has accepted the academic case for restructure. There is broad agreement that a new configuration of academically distinct Departments will better reflect the disciplinary interests of the constituent Departments' staff and students.
3. For a number of years, it has been accepted that intellectually and pedagogically Archaeology and Social Anthropology have diverged. This has been recognized in the separation of an Archaeology Tripos from the Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos (as approved by Grace 2 of 4 November 2015). Archaeology has transformed conceptually and methodologically, expanding its global and deep-time remit through approaches that range from ancient genomics to digital technologies, material culture theory, and critical analysis of ancient texts. It finds increasing common ground with Biological Anthropology in the key fields of human evolution and human ecology, thereby creating new synergies with the natural sciences and specifically zoology, genetics, and biomedical research.
Social Anthropology has undergone similarly far-reaching developments, both in the nature of its ethnographic methods and the range of settings in which anthropologists study. It is no longer confined to studying societies, but instead takes as its remit the full range of cultural and institutional diversity of human societies and ways of life: the nature and limits of human variability in terms not only of political institutions and forms of livelihood but also the fundamentals of human thought, belief, and ethics. In place of the Victorian pairing with archaeology, then, research synergies for Social Anthropology range from environmental sciences through experimental psychology and political theory to theology and philosophy.
4. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, members of academic staff within the institutions concerned will be formally assigned to the appropriate Department. Wherever appropriate, routine administrative functions will continue as arranged currently. Academic leadership, strategy, and planning and resource functions will be discharged at the departmental level. All members of staff have been kept informed about the plans for the new Departments, through School, Faculty, and Department meetings, and ongoing consultation will be maintained.
5. The officers in the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences have begun to progress the proposed reorganization by undertaking meetings within the institutions concerned. The School has confirmed that consolidation of administrative support at the Faculty level, covering such functions as financial operations, human resources, research grant administration, computing and IT support, will continue as constituted currently.
6. The General Board is satisfied that there are no negative implications for the provision of teaching within the Departments. The Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos will continue under the management of a newly configured Committee of Management. Master's Degree courses will not be affected. There will continue to be two Degree Committees within the Faculty, one for the Departments of Archaeology, Social Anthropology, and Sociology, and one for the Department of Politics and International Studies.
7. A further recommendation of the Review Committee was that the Faculty of Human, Social and Political Science be dissolved and its duties and responsibilities be devolved to the existing and newly constituted Departments; the Faculty Board and the Council of the School agree that this should be implemented one year from the date of the establishment of the new Departments. The General Board will be invited to consider a further Report during Michaelmas Term 2017 proposing the dissolution of the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science and new governance arrangements, including the establishment of Department Boards which will assume the duties and authorities currently undertaken by the Faculty Board.
8. The General Board supports these proposals and now commends them to the University for approval.
I. That, with effect from1 October 2017, the Department of Social Anthropology, and the Sub-department of the Museum of Archeology and Anthropology within the Department of Social Anthropology, be established, and the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology retitled as the Department of Archaeology.
II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, with effect from the same date consequential changes to regulations as set out in the Annex to this Report be approved.
1. The Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology shall be a Sub-department of the Department of Social Anthropology.
(h)not more than four persons co-opted by the Committee, provided that it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to co-opt any person or persons.
3. Members in class (g) shall be appointed in the Michaelmas Term to serve for one year from 1 January following their appointment. Members in classes (d), (f), and (h) shall serve for four years in the first instance following their appointment.
4. The Committee shall meet at least once in each term of the academical year. Five members of the Committee shall form a quorum.
(i)to make an Annual Report on the Museum to the General Board.
6. The Cambridge Antiquarian Society shall be allowed free of charge, for meetings and for occasional conferences, the use of a suitable room in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology or in some other University building.
7. The provisions of Special Ordinance A (vii) concerning Reserved Business shall apply to the Committee of Management as if it were a body constituted by Statute.
(b)such number of offices of Senior Assistant Curator or Assistant Curator as the General Board shall from time to time determine.
2. Appointments and reappointments to the University office of Curator and Director of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, which may be held concurrently with another University office, shall be made by the General Board on the advice of a committee specially constituted for the particular occasion.
(b)be the official Head of the Museum for all administrative purposes.
4. Appointments and reappointments to an office of Senior Assistant Curator shall be made by the Appointments Committee for the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science, with the Curator and Director of the Museum as an additional member for this purpose.
5. The holders of University offices on the staff of the Museum shall be members of the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science under Regulation 1(b) of the regulations for Faculty Membership.