Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

I acknowledged his letter briefly, saying that I found it unacceptable that a Fellow of
another College, whatever his motives, should involve himself so deeply in the
affairs of St Edmund's. In my opinion it was for the Fellowship of St Edmund's,
acting in a mature and responsible way to resolve its own internal problems. Only in
this way could a young College develop to maturity. Accordingly I would confine
myself to saying that I had carefully noted his views, some of which hardly needed
stating, with some of which I was in agreement, but with others equally I disagreed.
I am sure that Glazebrook is someone who has a high opinion of himself and no
doubt made an enemy of him - if , as I suspected, he was not one already. However,
I could not let him get away with it.
Meanwhile Holifield had written to me on 16 September, claiming that the
constitutional issue had not been resolved, that his April letter had raised substantial
new points to which the Working Party had not responded. (Note however, that he
and the critics claimed the Working Party was unconstitutional!). My comments
about a possible appeal were wrong, as the constitutional issue had not been
resolved Furthermore it would be an empty exercise for him to follow the greivance
procedure laid down in his Statement of employment as this had as its first point of
referral the Master of the College. (In fact the second point if he did not get
satisfaction from the Master (which he claimed) was to raise a complaint with the
Association. This he still had not done, presumably because he did not think it
would be to his advantage!). A new point he raised was that it had not been made
clear to him whether it was his capacity to carry out the work or his conduct as
Bursar which was being criticised. He reserved his opinion on the constitutional
questions and on the matter generally.
In my reply I dealt accordingly with his failure to invoke the appeal procedures. The
main point he had made in his letter was his"refusal to accept my authoriuty in these
matters, although he had never raised this question in the meetings of the Working
Party. In answer to his new question I said that initially the Working Party concluded
that it was his capability that was in question, but his subsequent conduct would be
considered in the review of his performance which would be carried out, as indicated
in my warning letter.
On 16 August Holifield wrote to me asking me to confirm three matters concerning
the accounts which the Auditors were examining. First I had agreed that the
Admissions Tutor should be entitled to two meals per day, lunch and dinner, to be
charged to the Fellows Allowances (The normal allowance was one, but the
Admissions Tutor had made a case to me that he had to be in College at lunchtime
and at dinn ertime to keep abreast of the work; he had a full time job as a Lecturer in
the University). Second, I had agreed that meals provided on a few occasions to the
Governors of St Bedes School, meeting in the College, should be charged to
Entertaining on the Endowment Account. Third that a dinner arranged for the Vice-
Master should be at no cost to him in light of the additional burden he undertook
when deputizing during my period of illness. I confirmed this; there was nothing
wrong about these actions but they were to be held against me later on.
352