Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

eport was "a gallimaufry of tittle-tattle, not supported by hard evidence, one-sided,
obtruded into constitutional matters still being negotiated." It ended with a personal
attack on one of my supporters about to be elected Senior Tutor!
Meanwhile the College solicitors had arranged for their Senior Partner, who had not
until then been involved in the dispute, to meet with Glazebrook for negotiations.
On 10 May Mr Horwood Smart reported to me on his meeting with Glazebrook and
submitted a written report on 15 May. They had not discussed the conduct of the
Bursar, but the action that I had taken. "The petitioning Fellows do not question the right
of the Master to reprove or warn the Bursar . (my italics). Their concern is to establish
beyond doubt that any such action must be done in accordance with the provisions
of the Articles and, in particular , to establish that no Official Fellow can be dismissed
by the Master." (This had repeatedly been made clear a year before, and directly to
the Association and by the questioned amendment of May l988!).
Horwood-Smart had pointed out that I had always acknowledged that I must act in
accordance with the Articles and maintained that I had done so having regard to the
terms of the Bursars contract; he described the petition for a Visitation as an
extravagant over-reaction. Glazebrook conceded this but argued that I had been
tactless and apparently unwilling to discuss the matter. When the Fellows approved
the Bursar's contract of service, their attention had not been drawn to the provision
that the Master was to be an intermediary between the Association and the Bursar.
It was agreed that the application for a Visitation should be withdrawn and that the
applicants' apprehensions, which Horwood-Smart contended were without
foundation) should be dispelled by a memorandum which would record that : the
Master had always accepted that only the Association had the power to dismiss or
refuse to re-appoint a Fellow, whether or not that Fellow was also an Officer. The
Master's letter to the Bursar, to which the applicants had objected was no more than a
warning to the Bursar, in accordance with Employment Legislation and written to
protect the position of the College. (This had been my position from the beginning).
It was recommended that the Bursar should be given express limited authority for
disbursing College funds; payments in excess of this limit would have to be
approved by the F & G P Committee, sometimes retrospectively.
The Fellows would be allowed to withdraw without losing face or being expected to
make any contribution to the costs incurred. "The Master however, has acted with all
propriety and will not admit the case to be otherwise". Horwood-Smart told me that
it was agreed that nothing of a more formal nature was necessary. Such a
Memorandum could be agreed and then circulated among the Fellows before the
June meeting of the Association. Because Horwood-Smart was going on holiday
Glazebrook would draft the memorandum and send it to Horwood-Smart for
approval.
On 26 May Glazebrook wrote to Horwood-Smart enclosing the promised draft,
entitled "Explanatory Note", running to six pages, for signature by Horwood-Smart
and himself. It was couched in the terms he had formally repeatedly used in
367