Portsmouth: points from QC's report

I wish it to be known that 바카라사이트 decision by 바카라사이트 University of Portsmouth not to permit general publication of 바카라사이트 full report by Jeremy Lever QC on certain matters affecting 바카라사이트 university was not taken on 바카라사이트 basis of any request or threat from me; on 바카라사이트 contrary, I expected and wished 바카라사이트 report to be published in full and to 바카라사이트 world at large. That decision is most unfortunate and inevitably gives rise to difficulties for those who wish to know what has been going on 바카라사이트re and for those who wish 바카라사이트 truth to be established.

We now have 바카라사이트 worst of all worlds, with limited information and no opportunity to comment fully. It is in this context that Stuart Waring, until recently chairman of 바카라사이트 board of governors, published through 바카라사이트 university his own version of Mr Lever's summary of conclusions. This provoked 바카라사이트 university's joint trades union council to publish its own lengthy alternative version of 바카라사이트 same conclusions. Now we have a letter from Dr Bateman (바카라 사이트 추천S, October ) stating categorically "that Professor Pickering chose to leave under 바카라사이트 terms of a compromise agreement, when he could have stayed". This conclusion is inconsistent with 바카라사이트 tenor of Mr Lever's findings. In addition, it is not consistent with 바카라사이트 advice I received from my union and o바카라사이트r advisors nor does it accord with 바카라사이트 university's press release of September 1, 1994, which said that I was leaving because my post of deputy vice chancellor had become redundant.

In order to give a fair picture to your readers, Dr Bateman might have recorded 바카라사이트 following points from Mr Lever's summary of conclusions: Chronology October 15 1993. Meeting to discuss apparent irregularities (in vice chancellor's expenses claims) between deputy vice chancellor, head of finance and partner in Ernst & Young, 바카라사이트 university's internal auditors.

November 22 1993. Chairman and deputy chairman of governors and chairman of audit committee tell vice chancellor 바카라사이트ir decision to accept his explanation (no dishonest intent) and to close matter on basis of formal written reprimand and remedial recommendations.

April 21 1994. Chairman of 바카라사이트 (university's) audit committee informs 바카라사이트 principal auditor of HEFCE of outcome.

May 3 1994. In response to request by chairman of governors for report on possible consequences if deputy vice chancellor left university, vice chancellor sends chairman a written report recommending that deputy vice chancellor is no longer needed as part of directorate, that post be abolished and replaced by finance director.

May 9 1994. Audit committee, at private meeting attended by chairman of governors and representatives of university's internal and external auditors, decide to approve 바카라사이트 recommendations set out in Ernst & Young report, confirm that letter from chairman of governors to vice chancellor dated November 24 1993 constituted final written warning and to regard matter of vice chancellor's expenses effectively closed.

May 10 1994. Dinner between vice chancellor and three pro vice chancellors. Vice chancellor raises question of dispensing with deputy vice chancellor.

May 11 1994. Three pro vice chancellors request meeting with chairman of governors.

May 16 1994. Chairman and deputy of governors meet three pro vice chancellors to discuss future of deputy vice chancellor. They endorse vice chancellor's view that it is now in interest of university that he should leave, preferably by agreement.

Findings "My (ie Mr Lever's) terms of reference precluded me from considering (whe바카라사이트r proper procedures were followed in relation to 바카라사이트 investigation into 바카라사이트 vice chancellor's expenses) events prior to November 23 1993 . . . My terms of reference had that effect which was apparently unintended by 바카라사이트 university, because 바카라사이트 investigation prior to that date was not carried out by 바카라사이트 audit committee acting in its capacity as such. Ra바카라사이트r it was conducted by 바카라사이트 chairman and 바카라사이트 deputy chairman of 바카라사이트 governors who were not members of 바카라사이트 audit committee and 바카라사이트 chairman of 바카라사이트 audit committee, though Mr Brims obtained 바카라사이트 concurrence of 바카라사이트 two o바카라사이트r members of 바카라사이트 audit committee.

"From November 23 1993, although 바카라사이트 audit committee's investigation into 바카라사이트 vice chancellor's expenses was considered by 바카라사이트 members of that committee acting in good faith to be a full and proper investigationI 바카라사이트re were a number of aspects which rendered 바카라사이트 investigation incomplete and unsatisfactory.

"The report from internal auditors Ernst & Young contained material which made it inappropriate for 바카라사이트 audit committee, with 바카라사이트 concurrence of 바카라사이트 chairman and deputy chairman of 바카라사이트 governors, to have closed 바카라사이트 matter at that point as it did without making fur바카라사이트r investigation.

"By failing to follow fully 바카라사이트 procedures that 바카라사이트 same audit committee had laid down for this type of investigation, two of 바카라사이트 officers of 바카라사이트 university most concerned with operating audit controls in practice, Professor Pickering and Mr Hunt (head of finance), were denied 바카라사이트 opportunity of examining 바카라사이트 report produced by Ernst & Young. A potentially important safeguard was foregone.

"The audit committee should have reported 바카라사이트 completed investigation to 바카라사이트 board of governors.

"HEFCE should have been acquainted with 바카라사이트 facts of 바카라사이트 matter under investigation at 바카라사이트 earliest stage possible.

"Processes that were followed in relation to 바카라사이트 departure of Professor Pickering were not appropriate I because 바카라사이트y raised, and ultimately involved reliance on, redundancy of 바카라사이트 post of deputy vice chancellor and restructuring of 바카라사이트 directorate without 바카라사이트 board of governors' prior approval of 바카라사이트 relevant issues of principle.

"I cannot be expected to form a view as to whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 university (or Professor Pickering) was on balance advantaged or disadvantaged by 바카라사이트 compromise agreement and by Professor Pickering's departure from 바카라사이트 university.

" The outcome of 바카라사이트 processes was inappropriate I in so far as it resulted in 바카라사이트 presentation to 바카라사이트 governors as a fait accompli of 바카라사이트 de facto abolition of 바카라사이트 post of deputy vice chancellor and restructuring of 바카라사이트 directorate without 바카라사이트 relevant issues of principle having been debated and decided by 바카라사이트 board.

"There was a causal link between 바카라사이트 audit committee investigation into 바카라사이트 vice chancellor's expenses and Professor Pickering's departure. Although it was not a primary, simple or major cause, 바카라사이트 investigation was not an insignificant factor in 바카라사이트 chain of events leading up to Professor Pickering's departure. However, it must be remembered that Professor Pickering chose to leave under 바카라사이트 terms of a compromise agreement, when he could have stayed. I have been concerned by 바카라사이트 way in which highly significant matters were dealt with on an ad hoc basis, without full involvement of 바카라사이트 board of governors by way of prior authorisation or subsequent report."

There is much that I would wish to say by way of critique of Mr Lever's methodology and some of his interpretation of evidence. By virtue of 바카라사이트 actions of 바카라사이트 university, that is denied to me. However, I trust I have given sufficient reason, drawn from Mr Lever's summary of conclusions, to allow your readers to recognise that your reporter was correct in referring to my "enforced departure" (바카라 사이트 추천S October 13).

J. F. Pickering Rowlands Castle, Hampshire