Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

national legislation had superior weight and has thus superseded the Articles and
ordinances. He (and other Fellows) defined the Bursar as primarily a Fellow and
Officer of the College; (I defined him as primarily an employee of the College, his
Fellowship derived from this. His rights and contract were defined by reference to
national legislation). Members of the Association possess copies of the Articles and
Ordinances, but few, if any, have read the Employment Act.
He wrote that if the matter "drifts on without further clarification, it may well
provoke further acrimony within the College. The solution may well be an appeal to
the Visitor for a ruling. This would end the matter since the Visitor's decision could
only be challenged in the courts and I find it difficult to imagine a situation where
such an appeal would be lodged..."
He suggested however, that I might care to pursue another route - for me to request
the Association to change Ordinance XI.l so as to make the Bursar directly
responsible to the Master. "It would then be open to me to make a written case for
such a change. This seemed a rather cheeky proposal! In the meantime he said that
"it was essential that my amendment be quashed". To settle the matter swiftly he
enclosed a letter framed in the light of legal advice, which he trusted I would
forward to the College Solicitors. "You should not interpret all this as a challenge to
your rightful authority, still less as a move to provoke further acrimony, but simply
as a principled defence of the legal authority of our Articles and Ordinances of
Association." The attached letter on the legality of my amendment gave reasons for
declaring that it was invalid. However, I too had taken legal advice and saw no
reason to change my position.
I replied disagreeing with his statement that I did not accept the provisions in the
Articles and Ordinances. The case all hinged on the interpretation of some of them
and the weight attached to the residual powers of the Master refreed to in Article ll.
The Articles were "not unambiguous" and the advice I had received was that such
differences of opinion as had arisen could ultimately be resolved only by testing
them in the courts. I had not said that the Employment Protection Act supersedes
the Articles and Ordinances, but that the overall position of the Bursar as an
employee, Officer and Fellow must be assessed having due regard for the Articles
and Ordinances, to his particulars of employment and job description, and also to the
Employment Protection Act. The Bursar was both an employee and a Fellow (the
latter by virtue of his employment as Bursar); but for that he would not be a Fellow.
I did not think an appeal to the Visitor was in the best interests of the College, nor
that it would be the wish of the Fellowship. I hoped that it could be resolved
amicably within the College, but saw no cause to request that Article ll should be
channged; its intention to attribute substantial residual powers to the Master seemed
quite clear. I had received clear legal advice on the legality of the amendment, which
was not in accord with his interpretation. I believed that it had been and remained
the intention of the majority of the fellows that the Bursar should be responsible to
the Master. I said that it was not my intention to treat the Bursar solely as an
348