Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

claimed, as Bursar, full delegated authority under the Articles and Ordinances to
take any action he saw fit, without consultation with anyone. Repeatedly his
comment was on the lines of "I will bear these comments in mind and consider
them." He blamed much of the problem on the expansion of the College since he
took up the appointment, and the fact that in some areas procedures had not been in
place before. It was written on the assumption that the Bursar is the "Chief
Executive" in the College and the Master a mere figutrehead.
This was followed on 25 April by a letter from the five dissenting Fellows, headed by
Bruce Elsmore, taking me to task. "we would never have imagined that a Master of a
Cambridge College would write to a Fellow or Officer in such a peremptory and
hostile fashion. Our chief concern, however, is to express our disquiet at the way in
which you conceive and have exercised your authority as Master. " I had set up the
Working Party without obtaining authorisation from the Association. Its mode of
operation was essentially inquisitorial. The governance of the College is invested in
the Association, the Master and Fellows collectively. College Officers are directly
responsible to the Association. I did not have the right to set up ad hoc working
parties to investigate the conduct of individual Fellows or Officers, still less to issue
formal warnings of dismissal. No formal proceedings can be instituted without
recourse to the procedures set out in the two relevant Articles. (I have earlier
explained how much more draconian these are than my formal warning). It totally
ignored the requirements of Employment Law, so that, if the relevant Articles had
been invoked and the judgement had gone against the Bursar, he could not have
been dismissed by the Association, without going through the lengthy procedures of
warning, opportunity to improve etc.
They judged that "it will be necessary for you to frame a written statement which will
clarify the constitutional pprinciples at issue. Such a statement should include the
follwoinbg three points: 1. Withdrawal of the letter to Holifield as unouthorised; 2.
Confirmation of the principle that College Officers are directly responsible to the
Association; 3. Acknowledgement that the Master has no right to institute
proceedings against any Fellow or Officer without prior authorisation of the
Association and in accordance with the procedures set out in Articles 18 and 20. Our
purpose in all this is not to provoke controversy, but to prevent further conflict."
In the light of the tone of this letter and of the previuous meetings I had had with
them I declined to meet with them. Elsmore wrote on 9 May to say that they would
have no other course available but to raise the issues at a fiull meeting of the
Association. I wrote that a discussion before their letter was sent would have been
acceptable to me. However, as I totally rejected the points made in tat letter, and in
view of the provocative and threatening statements it contained I felt that no useful
purpose could be served by such a meeting. I regretted that further conflict seemed
inevitable.
On 21 May I received an invoice from the Bursar for a private party that I had held
five months earlier and had repeatedly requested - a further example of
incompetence.
342