Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

As one who had been away when much of the acrimony occurred, he was relatively
untainted. A solution could come only from looking forward and not too much
raking over the past. They indicated several areas of continuing dispute with me, a
need to further discuss the management relationship between the Bursar and the
Master and the need for expennditure to be approved by the F & G P Committee.
Ironically he said that there was a need for the College to be run by consensus rather
than confrontation. [Coming from one of the arch confronters this was a bit thick!] In
response I accepted that the issue of the management relationship between the
Master and the Bursar needed to be further discussed by the Fellowship. It could be
done conveniently when the new Job Description was discussed. I would be happy
with a resolution to the Association fixing limts to expenditure that could be incurred
by College Officers without F & G P Committee authorisation. Such a resolution
could also indicate the need for F & G P Committeee authorisation before
expenditure above these limits in term time and, retrospectively, in vacations. A
more difficult area was the question of the Master's general responsibility for the
affairs of the College, and the question of government by consensus.
Paul Luzio wished to make progress and achieve a situation where they felt able to
retire with grace from the confrontation which they had engineered, and to withdraw
their Petition. He pointed out that it would be sensible to try and do this within the
College, if possible without further recourse to lawyers, "since it would undoubtedly
help develop confidence and trust within the Fellowship." During July he put much
effort into trying to narrow the gap between Elsmore and Lehmann's demands and
my position. On the management relationship between Master and Bursar they
were still plugging away on the earlier lines. I was concerned that there should be a
need for the Bursar to keep the Master (and other Officers as appropriate) informed
on a frequent and regular basis. Also I was particularly concerned that there should
be a mechanism whereby any serious problems with a Bursar could be dealt with in
the early stages without moving directly to disciplinary action under Articles 18 and
20, involving the whole Association and the Visitor. We needed a disciplinary
mechanism for all our paid staff that protected the College as well as the individual
under the terms of the Employment Protection Act. I was concerned that any
statement should contain recognition of the need for Fellows to bring matters to the
Association before taking them outside.
In the event a draft statement to be approved by the Association, went through a
number of revisions. Paul was able to write to me that he had been sucessful in
persuading Elsmore and Lehmann to accept the draft statement. On the last revision
one minor change by me was accepted; but Glazebrook, writing to Horwood-Smart
could not resist the temptation to blame me unfairly for delay because I "had
subsequently proposed further amendments which were not acceptable...". It went to
the Association on 16 October as a formal resolution proposed by Paul Luzio and
seconded by the Vice-Master. It read as follows:
That the control and management of all the College’s affairs lie with the Association.
College Officers report to the Association or to one of the Committees to which it has
delegated responsibility. The Master has “a general responsibility for the affairs of
373