Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

As mentioned above, the end of year accounts l986/87, gave cause for concern and
the potential consequences for the College of inadequate control and
mismanagement of its affairs, including the financial consequences were alarming.
This led me to embark on an arduous and detailed enquiry.
I set up a Working Party to look into the pay and conditions for College staff,
consisting of myself, as Chairman, the Vice-Master, Geoffrey Cook and the Secretary
of the Association, Bernadette O'Flynn. The group also had a wider remit - to
investigate the College's financial situation about which there was cause for concern;
it held its first meeting on 5 November. By mid-November I was sending a memo to
the Bursar to ask for information and data on wages and payments to staff,
particulars of work and work rotas for each person, and statement of overtime paid.
I explained that we needed to draw up good working procedures for the future. I
wrote that I did not mean it as a reflection on his work; I thought he was serving the
College well as Bursar and if there were deficiencies I must share the blame. The
Working Party was also looking to set up a proper complaints procedure for the
future, including his protection from unsoundly-based allegations. We were looking
at the need for detailed advance estimates from the various spending departments,
including the College committees,"so that proper budgets and budget control will be
possibnle and spending decisions made on less of an ad hoc basis - a necessary and
overdue review of the way we do things" He would have an opportunity to study
and discuss the provisional conclusions with the Working Party, and we might
possibly involve him in discussions at an earlier stage than that.
I notified the Association in November that I was setting up the Working Party.
Subsequently I repeately made clear to the Association the action I was taking and it
was not challenged. My intention was to act with discretion and not expose Holifield
to a broader more public enquiry, in contrast to the way in which he had hiumself
dealt with the junior staff.
However, Holified continued to decline to cooperate and refused to accept that I had
any authority over him. The Working Party had a substantive meeting with the
Bursar on 25 January, when I made some notes on my summing up of the discussion:
There was a fundamental difference in interpretation between the Working Party and
the Bursar about his role and performance of his duties and the original intention in
appointing him was not being met. He was showing a too-detached and academic
attitude to his duties, a distancing of himself from his responsibilities; for example he
avoided planning, budgets, dealing with staff face-to-face, and giving them contracts,
because this involves difficult discussions. The result was a complete lack of
managerial control. In particular the engagement of staff was done on a wrong basis,
not being based on individual negotiation, agreed understanding pf pre-specified
terms and conditions - determined by the employer. In certain instances he allowed
staff too much latitude and power of self-determination. The agreed written
particulars of employment had still not been issued; staff still determined their own
terms, which led to much unnecessary argument and misinterpretation. Grievances
held by the staff were the result. The contract issue was not just window-dressing,
337