Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

[I had asked the College Auditors when carrying out the annual Audit of the College
accounts to submit a special report on the financial management of the College,
submitted on 27 October. This was to be considered at the Annual General Meeting
of the Association to be held on 14 November, but four of my critics had sought to
delay consideration both of it and of the Accounts for the Financial Year to 30 June
l988, on the grounds that ithese reports had not been distributed by the required
length of time before the meeting. (The fifth critic, Brading, was away on sabbatical
leave, or would presumably have signed it). The AGM was delayed until 5
December. At the 14 November Meeting Brading turned up and (having sought
advice from the Registrary of the University)I ruled that he should leave, because he
was on sabbatical leave, which he did reluctantly muttering dire threats. This report
from the Auditors confirmed the statements in the reports of the Working Party
which investigated the accounts for the year to June l987. At this meeting I proposed
a resolution from the chair taking up Glazebrook's suggestion about the continuing
work of the Working Party, to which one other Fellow should be added. By majority
vote this was agreed as the forum for resolving the difficulties and Bruce Elsmore
was appointed as the extra member.
[The Bursar objected to the Auditors' report which he claimed had marginal interest
in connection with the running of the College. I had acted unconstitutionally in
comissioning it (not so: it had been commissioned by me on l6 July during between
terms when there were no meetings of the Association and it was my responsibility
to keep College affairs moving in between meetings of the Governing Body). On 21
November he wrote a letter to all members of the Association, setting out his
objections. He claimed that in part it had been undertaken to justify my warning
letter to him in March, that it did not support all of the criticisms that had been
levelled at him then, and that it had cost £1300, which the College could ill afford. In
fact I had decided to bring in the professional auditors in view of the need to refute
Holifield's criticism of Geoffrey Cook and Bernadette O'Flynn who had undertaken
the earlier investigation. It was not fair to burden them with further time-consuming
investigations. In his "capacity as a Fellow of the College" he considered that the
preparation of this report had been unconstitutional, and it undermined his position
"as an Officer of the College and of the Fellows Council "to whom I am responsible".
He was sticking to his guns in refusing to acknowledge my authority.
Meanwhile a petition had been sent to the Visitor on 16 November, signed by Bruce
Elsmore (Senior Tutor), David Brading, John Holifield (Bursar), David Lehmann,
Julius Lipner and Mary Thatcher. The petition requested the ruling of the Visitor on
"four questions concerning the government and administration of the College which
are presently the subject of a dispute within it". The questions were: first, whether
the letters of 16 March (the 'warning'), 16 June and 6 October written by the Master to
Mr John Holifield, Fellow and Bursar, were ones which the Master had any authority
to write; second, whether what was recorded by minute of the Association's meeting
of 23 May l988 as an "amendment "given that it conflicted with Ordinances, was
procedurily wrong, etc. Third, whether the Master had the authority on his own to
commision a report from the College Auditors a report on whether the l986-87
Accounts justified the allegations contained in his ealrier letter to the Bursar; four,
353