Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

employee. While Articles 18 and 20 might ultimately need to be invoked they did
not offer an initial procedure, for the reasons I had explained.
I saw the the threat to petition the Visitor as blackmail and did not intend to
withdraw my amendment. My legal advice was firm on this. I had done nothing
wrong and there was no need to backtrack or take any further action. It was by now
clear that either the Bursar or myself would have to go. The legal advice was that the
easiest way to get rid of the Bursar was to let the contract lapse on 30 September l989
because it did not need to be renewed then if his performance was unsatisfactory and
he had already been advised of this. I should let the Bursar know that this was a
possibility. However, it seemed toi me that if the College was to recover this was too
far ahead.
I wrote to Holifield on 16 June pointing out that the passing of my amendment
confirmed that he was responsible directly to me, as Master, and through me to the
Association; and that I may investigate his performance in his job and exercise
disciplinary powers in line with accepted codes of practice relating to employment
matters. He might therefore wish to reconsider parts of his response to my warning
letter. He had not sought to activiate the greivance procedure, or to appeal against
my warning letter. It was my intention to review his performance and as a result of
such a review I might feel obliged to make recommendations to the Association for
further action in accordance with the relevant Articles of Association.
To the reader this may all sound very childish and pedantic, but it was deadly
serious. A man's future was at stake, with effects upon his family, and I was aware
of this and did not relish the struggle. But I had accepted the ultimate responsibility
for the efficiency and good order of the College. The exchanges were couched in
civilised language, and it is difficult to convey the utter awfulness of this period of
my life. This cause celebre had split the Fellowship. I perceived a real feeling of
malevolence towards me from some of the dissident Fellows, particularly from
Brading whose primary agenda item , I was sure, had been and remained to get rid
of me as Master. I was convinced that he was the ringleader, and he had used the
controversy over the Bursar's peformance to embarrass me. He was one of the three
who had threatened to resign if I became Master and he had been working against
me all along. This was not just my personal paranoia, but was the opinion of my
supporters - all the College Officers (with the exception of Elsmore) and the senior
Fellows outside the group of critics. I felt committed to the positive forward-looking
group of Fellows who were genuinely alarmed, as I was, about the way in which the
College was running out of control, due to the inadequacies of the Bursar. Had it not
been for this feeling of responsibility, I would have cut my losses and resigned, but
also my make-up was such that I could not admit defeat by the second rate bunch
that were gunning for me.
There was a hiatus until the beginning of August when in response to an approach
by Dr Peter Glazebrook, Director of Studies in Law at Jesus College, I met with him
in College on 9 August, in the presence of Professor Brian Napier, who had been
advising me on the legal considerations. He is an expert on Employment Law. I now
349