248
79. We have not inquired as to the model or models upon which the constitu- tion of the University, as set out in the Ordinance quoted, was based; but we would suggest that the requirements of such an institution, separated by ten thousand miles from the academic traditions and atmosphere of the United Kingdom, may very well be wholly different from the requirements of a University in England. And we would say at once that in our opinion the existing constitution is too "democratic" and too cumbrous for local needs.
80. According to section 8 (1) of the Ordinance the Vice-Chancellor :----
"shall be the chief administrative officer of the University, and shall have
such powers and duties as the Council shall assign to him".
So far as we are aware the Council has never defined those powers or those duties and the Statutes are silent on this point. It would indeed seem that his statutory powers are limited to a single vote, liable to be overruled by the majority, in Senate, Council and Court. We would suggest that he should be given definite authority to give orders to his staff and such statutory powers as would ensure, without further ado, that those orders are obeyed.
81. As regards the Senate, we are strongly of the opinion that its sphere should be rigidly confined to academic matters and that all else should be liable to be ruled, under Statute, to be out of order. This would seem to be implicit under the specific terms of seventeen of the eighteen paragraphs of Statute 10, but the whole of these are nullified by the very wide terms of paragraph 8 of that Statute, which reads:-
"To discuss and declare an opinion on any matter whatsoever relating to
the University'.
The simple deletion of that paragraph would in our opinion be of great advantage to the discipline of the University.
82. Even though the question may in practice only very rarely arise we consider that the present almost invulnerable status of the members of the staff ensured by Statute 17 of the Ordinance might easily be dangerous. The machinery for removing an incompetent lecturer, for example, whatever may be the terms of his original agree- ment, seems to us to be unnecessarily cumbrous under that Statute; and we consider that the publicity entailed by the existing necessity of taking such a case before a body such as the full Court is undesirable. The individual concerned must be fully entitled to appeal against any such decision; but the decision, we are satisfied, should original- ly lie with the Council, or even with the Vice-Chancellor subject to the Council's confirmation.
83. A further point under the same Statute presents itself. Apart from lunacy or something like criminal misconduct, the only "Good Cause" which can be shown seems to be the rather vague "actual incapacity". We do not fully under- stand the meaning of this term but it seems at least arguable that incompetence, indolence, indiscipline, and a number of other undersirable characteristics could never be quoted as a grounds for removal. We consider that this should be remedied and that no member of the staff should feel that he is invulnerable until retiring age.
84. The periodical election of Deans of the Faculties under Statute 3 (5) appears to us to be undesirable from the point of view of discipline, and it is not easy for us to see the objections to the senior professor being ex officio Dean of his Faculty, his place while on leave being naturally filled by the next senior. We observe that the annual election which obtains in the Engineering and Arts Faculties has become triennial in the Medical Faculty, presumably because the General Medical Council sees the same objections as we do to annual terms. We do not see why this principle should not be still further extended in the direction of permanent and non-elective appointments.