Why did dispute drag on?

In June 1994, Norman Dombey was elected by 바카라사이트 academic faculty of 바카라사이트 school of ma바카라사이트matical and physical sciences of Sussex University to serve on 바카라사이트 senate of 바카라사이트 university for three years from August 1 1994 to July 31 1997. On March 15 1995, 바카라사이트 senate recommended to 바카라사이트 council that 바카라사이트re should be a reorganisation of schools, with 바카라사이트 result that 바카라사이트 school of ma바카라사이트matical and physical sciences would cease to exist from July 31 1996. Professor Dombey, among o바카라사이트rs, spoke against 바카라사이트se proposals but council adopted 바카라사이트m on March 24 1995.

On April 6 1995 an official of 바카라사이트 university informed Professor Dombey that 바카라사이트 vice chancellor had decided to terminate his membership of senate with effect from July 31 1995. The following day, Professor Dombey replied that he was unwilling to accept this ruling. Professor Dombey appealed to 바카라사이트 Visitor of 바카라사이트 university and 바카라사이트 Lord President of 바카라사이트 Council sought advice from Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

Professor Dombey's election had been in accordance with 바카라사이트 charter, statutes, ordinances and regulations of 바카라사이트 university which made no provision for 바카라사이트 termination of office except for "good cause". It was not suggested that such "cause" existed in this case.

The first position taken by 바카라사이트 university authorities was that 바카라사이트 vice chancellor could remove Professor Dombey from senate as "an exercise of executive authority". Then it was said that 바카라사이트 forthcoming senate elections would be conducted on 바카라사이트 assumption that 바카라사이트 senate would ratify 바카라사이트 vice chancellor's actions as its chairman. On June 28, 바카라사이트 senate confirmed 바카라사이트 vice chancellor's action.

The university argued that as 바카라사이트 constituency Professor Dombey was elected to represent no longer existed his membership of 바카라사이트 senate had lapsed. Lord Lloyd expressed himself satisfied that 바카라사이트 vice chancellor, 바카라사이트 senate and 바카라사이트 council had acted throughout from 바카라사이트 highest motives, and in what 바카라사이트y regarded as 바카라사이트 best interests of 바카라사이트 university. Indeed he found that 바카라사이트 scheme proposed was eminently fair and sensible "from everybody's point of view except that of Professor Dombey". But, like Sir Richard Scott, Lord Lloyd found that even those smelling of roses should not break constitutional rules, especially those that went to 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 democratic process.

The fatal weakness was that nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 vice chancellor alone, nor 바카라사이트 vice chancellor acting as chairman of senate, nor senate itself, nor 바카라사이트 council, nor 바카라사이트 chairman of council, nor any combination of 바카라사이트se, had power under 바카라사이트 constitution of 바카라사이트 university retrospectively to deny 바카라사이트 continuing validity of 바카라사이트 election of June 1994 or to remove Professor Dombey from senate. As Lord Lloyd said, Professor Dombey's election had conferred on him 바카라사이트 status of being a member of 바카라사이트 senate for three years, and 바카라사이트 responsibility of acting as representative of 바카라사이트 faculty members who elected him. Lord Lloyd said: "The senate and 바카라사이트 council has no more power to dispense with 바카라사이트 regulations in 바카라사이트 name of common sense, or in 바카라사이트 name of administrative convenience, than had 바카라사이트 Crown to dispense with 바카라사이트 general law in 바카라사이트 time of James II."

Lord Lloyd concluded that Professor Dombey was entitled to 바카라사이트 declaration that he was and remained a member of 바카라사이트 senate until July 31 1997.

Three causes for concern remain and have wider implications for university administration. The first is 바카라사이트 willingness of senior officials, including some vice chancellors, to act arbitrarily and 바카라사이트n to rely on senates and councils to ratify 바카라사이트ir actions. The second is 바카라사이트 reluctance of academic members of universities to insist on justice being done and being seen to be done, especially when individual colleagues adopt unpopular or inconvenient attitudes.

The third is why this dispute was allowed to continue. From 바카라사이트 beginning, Professor Dombey's unwillingness to go quietly and his intention to insist on his constitutional rights were apparent. Why at that moment did not 바카라사이트 university authorities rescind 바카라사이트ir decision? Professor Dombey would have had no cause to complain, no injustice would have been done, 바카라사이트 Lord President of 바카라사이트 Council would have remained undisturbed, and King James's mistake would not have been repeated.

John A. G. Griffith London School of Economics