Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

work on drawings for the development; lack of prop[er vouchers for petty cash
payments.
Third, a lack of forecasting of cash needs, the most serious consequence being a need
to withdraw from the Building Fund at short notice some £63,000 as a 'loan' to the
Current Account; the Treasurer was not aware of this problem until it had reached
crisis proportions. This only emerged in the course of the Working Party's
investigation. , an unacceptable practice Fourth, he had been giving cash-in-hand
payments to staff, when tax should have been deducted beforehand.
Fifth, his attitude to staff and students had led to grievances and resentment.
Although the complaints were difficult to verify they came from all sides. .
I outlined the improvement in performance expected, including stock control,
inventories, general improvements in financial control and in relations with staff and
students. I gave him a timescale of three months to demonstrate some improvement,
when a review of progress would be made. Insufficent improvement could lead to
more serious action which could include steps leading to his dismissal from the post
of Bursar. I offered him a right of appeal within ten days against the disciplinary
warning.
He responded in a brief letter repudiating the central charge that the performance of
his duties had been unsatisfactoryand that he had not shown himself to be capable of
discharging his responsibilities competently. He did not accept the acuracy, balance
or fairness of many of the detailed points made in my letter. He would send full
details of his responses when they had been prepared and assembled. He did not
accept that an appeal must be made within 10 days or in any way other than
provided by his terms of employment, in accordance with Section 1 of the
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act l978.
The sending of the warning letter rsulted in an escalation of the struggle. The
dissident Fellows claimed that I had no authority to give the Bursar a written
warning and had acted unconstitutionally. One of them had earlier written to me to
advise against a formal warning. His main point he said was that a negative or
punitive approach would not work, including the issue of a formal warning. He
considered that if the Association wanted to give the Bursar the sack then they
should so so now. A formal warning would be perceived by the Bursar as a prelude
to his removal. He would not react by improving his performance, but would
become depressed and upset, with further deterioration in his job performance and
conceivably on his health. His philosophy was to use positive stimu, we were not
dealing with a young graduate trainee who could be told to pull his socks up. His
main recommendation was that the College insist that he improve his professional
qualifications by attending an appropriate management course. He wrote: "My
impression is that he is used to doing things in an intuitive sort of way without any
system, and that somehow this habit must be changed." and "It is not easy for a man
in his fifties to change his ways; but we should give him the chance, and my view is
that the chance should be presented in the form of an opportunity to become a more
339