University Agenda

Contents of this section:

[Note. An asterisk denotes a reference to a previously published or recurrent entry.]

Return to Contents Page of this issue


CONGREGATION 29 March

Degree by Special Resolution

The following special resolution will be deemed to be approved at noon on 29 March, unless by that time the Registrar has received notice in writing from two or more members of Congregation under the provisions of Tit. II, Sect. vi, cl. 6 (Statutes, 1997, p. 15) that they wish the resolution to be put to a meeting of Congregation.

Text of Special Resolution

That the Degree of Master of Arts be conferred upon the following:

BJARKE MAX FRELLESVIG, Hertford College

TABITTA VAN NOUHUYS, Magdalen College

Return to List of Contents of this section


CONGREGATION 27 April 2 p.m.

Voting on General Resolution depriving a member of the University of the Degree of Master of Philosophy

Explanatory note

The Proctors, after conducting a full investigation, have found that a member of the University, on whom the Degree of Master of Philosophy has been conferred, used unfair means in an examination for that degree and have concluded that the appropriate penalty would be deprivation of the degree. The member concerned pleaded guilty to that charge and has decided not to exercise the right of appeal to the Disciplinary Court, under the provisions of Title XIII, against the Proctors' decision.

Council, having considered a confidential report from the Proctors on the circumstances of the case, accordingly submits the following general resolution to Congregation under the provisions of Ch. I, Sect. I, § 4 (Statutes, 1997, p. 186), which empowers Congregation `to deprive any graduate of the University of his or her degree or degrees for any reason it thinks fit'. The same legislation goes on to prescribe: `The procedure for de-gradation shall be laid down by decree on each occasion.' If the general resolution is approved, therefore, Council will make a decree depriving the member concerned of the degree (that decree, together with the posting of a notice in the Examination Schools, constituting the procedure).

In the special circumstances of this case, Council has adopted the recommendation of the Proctors that the member should not be named publicly at any stage throughout the procedure. Any member of Congregation wishing to read a report by the Proctors on the case may do so, on personal application to the Proctors' Office, Wellington Square, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. from now until Wednesday, 31 March, and from Monday, 12 April, until Monday, 26 April (all dates inclusive), and between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 April, provided that he or she shall first have:

(a) identified himself or herself as a member of Congregation; and

(b) undertaken in writing not to divulge any information to any other person (whether a member of Congregation or not) which would enable the member of the University concerned, or any other person referred to in the Proctors' report (whether by name or not), to be identified.

Text of General Resolution

That this House:

1 (a) take note of the Proctors' finding that a member of the University used unfair means in an examination for the Degree of Master of Philosophy; and

(b) accept the Proctors' conclusion that the appropriate penalty in this case would be deprivation of the degree;

2 therefore agree to deprive the member concerned of the Degree of Master of Philosophy, and instruct Council to determine by decree the procedure for de-gradation to be followed in this case.

Return to List of Contents of this section


CONGREGATION 11 May 2 p.m.

Voting on General Resolutions approving the proposals of the Joint Working Party on Governance

Explanatory note to General Resolutions (1)–(13)

The second report of the Joint Working Party of Council and the General Board on Governance was published as Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4506, 24 March 1999, p. 959. This builds on the principles set out in the working party's first report (Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4487, 21 October 1998, p. 177), refining the approach in the light of responses to that document. Council and the General Board have agreed that, as proposed in para. 71 of the second report, resolutions should now be put to Congregation seeking its approval for the key points of principle of the proposed new governance structure for the University. Council submits the following general resolutions accordingly.

Members of Congregation are asked to note that the first meeting to debate these resolutions will be held on the Tuesday of Third Week of Trinity Full Term, 11 May. If necessary, the debate will be continued at the stated meeting on the Tuesday of Fourth Week, 18 May.

Each resolution, and any amendments proposed by members of Congregation under the statutory procedures, will be put separately to the vote at the meeting of Congregation, and will subsequently be put to a postal vote in order to give members of Congregation who are unable to attend on 11 May the opportunity to indicate their views on each point.

General Resolutions (7) and (8) are alternatives, General Resolution (7) (the two-division option for the arts) being the alternative preferred by Council and the General Board: if only one is approved by a majority in the postal vote, Council and the Board will pursue the relevant option; if both are approved by a majority, Council and the Board will pursue the option which receives the greater number of votes in its favour.

Council attaches great importance to introducing the new governance structure of the University, as approved by Congregation, with effect from the beginning of Michaelmas Term 2000. Because extensive preparations will therefore need to be made during the academic year 1999–2000, and some of the necessary new legislation will be subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council (a process which takes many months), once the voting on the general resolutions is complete, and Congregation's will is known, Council will place before Congregation as soon as possible the proposed statutes and decrees setting up the main bodies of the new governance structure. In particular, Council hopes that it will be possible to complete by the end of Trinity Term (i.e. not later than the meeting of Congregation on 29 June) the University's proceedings on the `Queen-in-Council' statute replacing the Hebdomadal Council and the General Board with the new Council, which is the subject of General Resolution (1), so that this statute can be submitted to Her Majesty in Council before the Long Vacation.

Text of General Resolution (1)

That this House approve the proposal that there should be a single body (`the Council') to replace the Hebdomadal Council and the General Board, with the role set out in section 2.2 of the annexe to the second report of the Joint Working Party on Governance (`the annexe' and `the report' respectively).

Text of General Resolution (2)

That this House approve the proposal that the Council should be composed as set out in section 3.2 of the annexe.

Text of General Resolution (3)

That this House approve the proposal that the Council should have four main committees with the roles set out in sections 2.3–2.6 of the annexe.

Text of General Resolution (4)

That this House approve the proposal that the four main committees should be composed as set out in sections 3.3–3.6 of the annexe.

Text of General Resolution (5)

That this House approve the proposals for the appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors with defined special responsibilities broadly as set out in para. 28 of the report.

Text of General Resolution (6)

That this House approve the proposal that there should be three science divisions as set out in sections 5.4–5.6 of the annexe, with delegated powers and ex officio representation as set out in paras. 38–54 of the report.

Text of General Resolution (7)

That this House approve the proposal that there should be two arts divisions as set out in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the annexe, with delegated powers and ex officio representation as proposed in paras. 38–54 of the report.

Text of General Resolution (8)

That this House approve the proposal that there should be a single arts division as set out in section 5.3 of the annexe, with delegated powers and ex officio representation as proposed in paras. 38–54 of the report.

Text of General Resolution (9)

That this House approve the proposal that the divisions should operate broadly as set out in sections 7 and 8 of the annexe.

Text of General Resolution (10)

That this House approve the proposals for the academic services set out in paras. 59–66 of the report.

Text of General Resolution (11)

That this House approve the proposals for the office of Vice-Chancellor set out in para. 71 (k) of the report.

Text of General Resolution (12)

That this House approve the proposals for the composition and role of Congregation set out in para. 71 (l) of the report.

Text of General Resolution (13)

That this House approve the proposal that there should be a review of the operation of the new governance structure after five years, with the remit and composition set out in para. 71 (m) of the report.

Return to List of Contents of this section