Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

On t23 May l988 the Association met. It was almost exclusively concerned with these
matters and other business was deferred to a later meeting. The five moved a
resolution:
"That the Association re-affirm that:
(a) Under its Articles and Ordinances College Officers are appointed by the
Association and are directly responsible to the Fellows Council (Ord,VIII (6), X (2),
XI,l.
(b) No committee under whatever name dealing with College affairs should be
established without the authorisation of the Fellows Council or the Association.
(c) The only proceedings or inquiries into the conduct and performance of any
Officer or Fellow that may be instituted by any committee or other body of persons
within the College are those constituted in accordance with Articles l8 and 20 of the
Association."
They requested a vote by ballot with two tellers. The Association voted against the
appointment of two tellers, as contrary to the implication of the statement from the
five, there was no provision in the Articles for this.
The resolution and the reasons for it were discussed in detail. As I wished to refer to
the issue which gave rise to the resolution presented asked the Bursar under Article 5
(ix) to leave the meeting, but the Bursar objected and on a show of hands it was voted
that he should remain, which iwas clearly in conflict with Article 5 (ix). I then read
out a detailed statement of the background issues , the matter under consideration
and the consequences to the College of continued acrimony and dispute. Among the
points I made were : I announced the setting up of the Working Party in November
l987. Why was I not challenged then if it was thought to be unconstitutional? I gave
progress reports to the Association but not in detail; I did not wish publicly to expose
his weaknesses before giving him the opportunity to put matters right. . The Bursar
accepted the findings of the Working Party at its final meeting, and so my final oral
report to the Association had indicated that there were deficiencies, but let the Bursar
off lightly. He had then chosen to dispute my very lenient statement to the
Associaition in February, from which the rest had followed. At the series of informal
meetings with Fellows I had made my intention to issue a warning letter clear. Only
three fellows had questioned my intention to take disciplinary action, two on the
grounds that it might lead to the Bursar's early resignation, one felt that it was unjust.
Dr Brading, (the ringleader of the opposition to me) had not taken part in these
meetings and made no effort to familiarise himself with the facts of the case. He did
not attempt to raise the matter until the letter of 25 April.
The whole matter was complicated by employment law. The College was bound not
only by the Articles, but also by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act
(l978) which gives an employee the right to a disciplinary procedure not expressed in
343