UCL ACADEMIC STAFF COMMON ROOM
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
MINUTES
Wednesday 9th February, 5.30 p.m.
Present:
Committee – 10: Steve Miller (in the Chair), Frank Penter (Hon. Treasurer), Bob Barber, Martin
Butcher, Peter Cadley, Edward de Chazal, Roger Flower, Diana Manuel, Julie Rolls, Jane Spender
(Manager); other ASCR members – 112
Apologies: Committee – John Brodholt, Ruth Dar, Talvinder Sihra, Richard Simons (Hon. Secretary)
1. Welcome and apologies for absence
Steve Miller welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introduced the others at the table with him –
Frank Penter (Hon. Treasurer), Martin Butcher and Jane Spender(Manager). Apologies from absent
Committee members were as noted above.
The Committee had taken a number of decisions on the use of the Housman Room:
 The number of guests that members could sign in at any one time had been increased from three
to six;
 The Mullard Space Science Laboratory would be allowed to take out a small number of
memberships for occasional use by listed members of their staff (such as their post-doctoral
research assistants), and the Committee would consider similar requests from other parts of UCL
outside the M25 on a case-by-case basis;
 Major donors to UCL and volunteers on the Campaign Executive Committee would be accepted
as ASCR members.
Thanks were due to all the contributors to the Haldane and John Klier Events during the course of
2009–2010, and to Chartwells for again sponsoring the buffet supper to come.
2. Minutes of the last meeting, 24th November 2009
The Minutes for the year 2008–2009 (Annex 1) had been made available on the ASCR website, and
had been distributed at the start of the meeting. No corrections to them had been received, no
comments were made from the floor, and they were approved as a true record.
3. Annual Report
Richard Simons’ Report on behalf of the Committee had been available on the website and distributed
at the start of the meeting (Annex 2). There being no comments, it was accepted and approved.
4. Treasurer’s Report
A short Report on 2009–2010, together with audited Accounts to 31st July 2009, including the 2009–
10 budget and the budget for 2010–11, had been made available on the ASCR website and handed out
before the start of the meeting (Annex 3). Frank Penter said that the report had been written prior to
the November date originally intended for the AGM, and one or two things had moved on since then,
the chief of which was that in time since the Accounts to 31st July 2010 had been audited.
There were no questions, and the Treasurer’s Report was accepted and approved.
5. Election of Committee and Officers for the year
All thirteen members of the current Committee were willing to stand for re-election, and nominations
were invited from the floor. None were forthcoming, and the existing Committee members were
unanimously re-elected en bloc.
6. Appointment of Auditors for the year 2010–2011
Gordon Kenshole (Electrical Engineering and an Honorary Member of the ASCR) was willing to serve
again as Auditor and was immediately nominated and unanimously appointed. He was warmly
thanked for his past and future contributions. Any member wishing to share the appointment was
invited to propose him- or herself by e.mail to the Manager.
7. The Bloomsbury Master Plan, its proposed changes and their impact on the future of
the Academic Staff Common Room
Steve Miller began by introducing and welcoming Andrew Grainger, Director of Estates & Facilities,
and Angela Clemo, also of Estates & Facilities, who were present in order to make a brief presentation
of the Bloomsbury Masterplan and to stay in case there were questions that could be answered on the
spot.
He outlined a brief timeline, so that the Meeting would understand the involvement the ASCR had had
with the Master Plan:
 on 8th December he had received an e.mail from Paul Ayris, Director of Library Services, advising
him of the Master Plan proposal that Special Collections should move into the Housman Room,
and asking for his comments. This was the first anyone had heard about the Master Plan, apart
from Ruth Dar, who had forwarded the information a few minutes earlier.
 On 22nd December members of the Committee had met Andrew Grainger and Angela Clemo to
start discussions.
 Between 22nd December and the beginning of January a further meeting was arranged for the
first week of January, but did not take place [it finally took place on 19th January].
 On 18th January the Committee had sent Andrew Grainger a statement to the Estates
Management Committee, which he had circulated to the EMC members in time for their meeting
on 26th January.
 On 27th January Jane and Angela Clemo had met, and Angela had made the proposal that the
ASCR move into 25 and 26 Gordon Square.
 On 1st February members of the ASCR Committee had visited 48 Gordon Sq., to get an idea of the
interior of the houses in Gordon Sq. and what adaptations might be made to nos. 25/26 to suit
the ASCR. The Committee had decided to prepare their own evaluation of the proposal.
 Between 1st and 8th February the Committee had made their evaluation and prepared the
document headed ASCR Committee position on the Bloomsbury Masterplan, which had been
handed out with the other papers at the start of the AGM.
The Committee had worked hard to engage as constructively as possible while looking after ASCR
members, who are all also members of the wider UCL community. Martin Butcher had spoken to the
Provost, as had he himself.
Martin Butcher briefly explained that at their meeting with Andrew and Angela on 22nd December
the Committee had understood that the EMC meeting would be held in February; this would have
allowed time to consult the membership. When this had turned out not to be the case, the Committee,
as the representatives of the ASCR members, had put down as a marker to the EMC the Committee’s
views on the original proposal. Now that there was to be further consultation on the Master Plan,
ASCR members would have the chance to give their own views.
Frank Penter reported that five Committee members had been shown round 48 Gordon Sq., and a
sub-group had been tasked with making an appraisal of 25/26 Gordon Sq. as a possible home for the
ASCR. The document ASCR Committee position on the Bloomsbury Masterplan contained a note on
the ASCR in the Housman Room; the current version of the Master Plan and its proposal for the
ASCR; the benefits and disadvantages of the proposal as the group saw them, especially the lack of a
single large space; and a final section on how the Committee wanted to take the discussion foward.
Andrew Grainger thanked the Committee for providing the opportunity for him to explain the wider
context of the Bloomsbury Master Plan.
The background was that over the previous 7 months a thorough study had been made of the
Bloomsbury campus, which had shown the inadequacy of the estate: there was not enough space, and
what space there was was not being properly used, with the result that it did not work for the
University. The aim of the Master Plan was to support the University’s academic work, unlock the
gridlock on the campus, enable UCL to grow and enable major improvements to the student
experience.
The brief to the Master Planners had been to be ambitious, to be unafraid of being radical and to allow
no sacred cows. Estates had consulted widely, speaking to Faculty Champions, Library Services, and
others; but in such a big exercise it was impossible to consult eveyone who had an interest, and he
apologised to the Academic Staff Common Room that it had not been included in that consultation.
He acknowledged that most people would feel some pain from the Master Plan, but the gains for the
institution as a whole would be huge.
The emerging conclusions had been enthusiastically supported in the Estates Management
Committee; these would be taken forward to a further meeting of the EMC at the end of March, which
would lead to a robust consultation document in the nature of a Green Paper. At that point there
would be a broad opportunity for everyone to comment.
There were many detailed matters to be resolved, but the Master Plan was a strategic framework for
the next 10 years. It would be expensive to implement but much of the funding was already in place,
and the institution had the capacity to cope with the changes and development and how this would
bear on the student and staff experience.
Angela Clemo said that she had talked to Jane Spender in order to understand better the functions
the Housman Room fulfilled, and had outlined the possible uses the ASCR could make of the spaces of
25/26 Gordon Square to which it was proposed the ASCR should move. Estates recognised that there
was a need for a larger room than was currently available in 25/26, and would work on providing it,
but the two houses would make an excellent staff facility, their rooms providing space for a range of
functions and networking areas. She hoped to engage the ASCR with the Bloomsbury Master Plan
team.
Steve Miller then read out an e.mail from Nicola Miller, Head of the History, whose Department
currently occupied 23–26 Gordon Square:
“Please could you feed the following into your discussion at this evening's meeting of the
ASCR, which I will probably not be able to attend (apologies).
“While I've had no chance to look in detail at the proposed plans, as Head of History I am
very concerned to hear about plans to move the History Department out of 23–26 Gordon
Square. Our current premises are well-suited to our model of small-group teaching, with a
relatively small number of large lectures that can readily be accommodated elsewhere. It is
hard to envisage the proposed move leading any significant improvement in facilities,
certainly not enough of an improvement to make the disruption worthwhile. Some
refurbishment and adaptation of our current buildings would be far more efficient and
beneficial to both students and staff.
“As a member of the ASCR, I will add my voice to the many who argue that it is an invaluable
facility, both for staff use and for entertaining visitors, who are always impressed by it. Few
universities have such a good facility and it would be a serious loss to the institution. I
understand a staff club is proposed, about which I know nothing, so have no way of judging
whether or not it would be desirable, although so far as I know no-one has expressed any
wish for such a thing. But what would the hostile media make of UCL spending money on
luxury staff facilities when student fees are going to be so high? We have the Housman
Room, it works in its current form, the Librarian has said that it doesn't work for Special
Collections, so let's just keep Housman as it is – a vital hub for the institution.” [Applause]
David Colquhoun described the proposal to move the ASCR out of the Housman Room as nonsense,
something put together by those who did not know how academia worked. The size of the common
room was critical: it was essential to interdisciplinarity that it should be possible to see who was in the
common room. The proposal would not do; it was not impressive that most people had discovered it
by accident a couple of weeks prior to the AGM. He did agree that it was a good idea to improve things
for students, and to make the Cloisters livelier. However, the last thing needed was to expand libraries
– they would be contracting in size in future. Estates should re-think. It should be possible to have a
good facility for the staff, but not in 25/26 Gordon Square.
Ralf Schoepfer asked for clarification on the following: (a) What was the total budget set aside for
the Master Plan? (b) What was the precise budget for relocating the ASCR? (c) What was the exact
floor area of 25/26 Gordon Sq.? The 600m2 noted in the ASCR position paper was misleading – did it
include stairs, corridors, etc.? (d) Rooms with low ceilings were unsuitable – what was the available
useable volume of the spaces?
Tegid Jones agreed with both previous speakers. He had been at UCL for 40 years, and had thought
he was a member of an academic institution. He believed that the proposal could have gone to Council
without staff knowing anything about it – why had information about it come so late? When did the
senior academics hear about it, and who commissioned the work?
Alan Aylward had listened to the presentation – but what was the overall intention of the Master
Plan, what was its vision?
An unidentified member asked whether there was any form of deed or listing that would protect
the Housman Room?
Julie Rolls said that Andrew Grainger had rightly mentioned improving the student experience at
UCL, but had not spoken about the staff experience, which was a real slap in the face. She would like
reassurance that staff would be properly considered and treated under the Master Plan. What
reassurances would be given that the opinions expressed by staff during the proposed consultation
would be taken seriously or have any effect?
Elizabeth Clear said that Library Services had not invented the plan to relocate the ASCR and move
Special Collections into the Housman Room. Not only was the Housman Room not big enough for
Special Collections, it was not an ideal place for Special Collections to occupy. It should remain a staff
common room.
Lucia Sivilotti explained the way the room worked: staff could meet anyone, and everyone, in the
Housman Room. It was because of a meeting in the Housman Room that she had her current job, and
was now a Professor in Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology. The Housman Room worked as
a common-room because it was large, because people could not help socialising in it. Through chance
meetings, she had received tips, teaching help, and assistance of all kinds.
Graham Collins spoke about a group of stakeholders not so far mentioned, visiting speakers. He
believed that bringing them to such a large and imposing room had considerable value for UCL, and it
would be difficult to find a similarly important space.
David Miller asked why there had not been any earlier consultations, and why the Provost had not
been persuaded to mention the Master Plan in his Newsletter. He himself, as a former chair of the
UCL Chamber Music Club, was particularly concerned about the provision of space in the University
for musical activities: it seemed that the Haldane Room would be taken over for other uses and would
no longer be available for CMC rehearsals and concerts. What provision would be made for musical
performance? Had the Master Plan team considered this at all?
Michael Edwards agreed with all the previous speakers. He congratulated the ASCR Committee for
their involvement and hard work. Referring to the ASCR Committee position paper, he urged the
Committee to press extremely hard for Estates to look at the feasibility of providing the ASCR with the
use of a single large room (150m2 minimum) on one floor of the new Beach site building, together with
26 Gordon Square, and to urge that this should be a properly designed space with a good height
ceiling.
Steve Miller said that a building on the Beach site was a twinkle in the Provost’s eye, and that there
was a real question about the funds for it being available.
Michael Edwards pointed out that there should be no question of moving to houses in Gordon
Square before the catering and lift access via a Beach site building were in place.
Iain Stevenson said that he had been at UCL as a student, and had returned as a staff member in
2006. He had always been aware of the Housman Room. Ten years ago City University, where he was
working at the time, had decided to use the senior common-room for computer space. The SCR had
been given an unpleasant room with a capacity of about 35, a room so unsuitable for an SCR that it had
been barely used since. The proposal to re-designate the Housman Room must be fought.
Michael Crawford wondered where the History Department would be moved to if the ASCR was to
be moved into 25/26 Gordon Sq. He had come to UCL after twenty years in Cambridge and the
Housman Room had been at the centre of his work because of its dynamics and nobility of space. It
must not be lost.
Irving Dworetszky said that in addition the UCL Chamber Music Club, musical activity in UCL was
increased and enhanced by the Oxford and Cambridge Musical Club which, during its long association
with UCL, rehearsed and gave concerts in both the Haldane Room and in the Housman Room. It
would be a matter of great regret if the Oxford and Cambridge association were to be brought to an
end.
Edward de Chazal spoke of the universal sense of shock and disbelief felt by the ASCR, partly
because of the way in which the proposal had been sprung on the committee and membership, and
partly because of the nature of that proposal.
Bob Barber said that the proposal was of grave concern. He viewed it as an academic matter, and felt
that it should be dealt with through the Academic Board. Having looked at the University statutes he
had seen that the Academic Board had been set up by the founding statutes with almost the same
rights as the Council. He believed it was in a very strong position to guide Council on academic
matters, and was surprised that it was not better attended.
David Colquhoun said that the Housman Room had been absolutely central to his own career,
which had been built there: he had encountered a statistician in the Housman Room in the late 1960s,
and had begun work with him – the first of their 16 co-written papers had been published in 1977, and
their latest was currently in preparation. Because of its size, it was possible to see everyone who was in
the room.
Paul Ekins said that as a member of the UCL Energy Institute he knew a great deal about
government consultation. His experience was that the big decisions were taken in advance, and any
such consultation led only to “i”s being dotted and “t”s crossed – the fundamental issues were pretty
well settled in stone. He would like to ask Andrew Grainger whether the proposed consultation would
be one in which the fundamentals were actual proposals or one which was purely superficial.
Steve Miller commented that by the time the Bloomsbury Master Plan was finalised, many of those
present would probably be dead, and suggested that the younger members present should speak.
Stuart Robinson agreed with all the previous comments. He asked what the actual available floor
space in 25/26 Gordon Sq. was, excluding for example stairs and halls, whether the Gordon Sq. option
was a recent suggestion, and whether other options had been considered.
Bess Ryder said that she took it for granted that almost everyone agreed on the value of libraries in
UCL. Her office was very close to the Housman Room, and she was fully aware that every evening
there were activities taking place in the Cloisters. A member of Library Services herself, she felt it
would be a total waste of the Wilkins building if it were handed over to Library Services.
Sally Price said she vaguely remembered a huge Bloomsbury Masterplan pdf. being circulated which
she had searched in vain for any reference to the Chemistry auditorium and its inadequacy for the
numbers needing to use it. She had the impression that the Master Plan proposals were being made
on the basis of the previous year’s data. Had the proposal for the ASCR been included in that
document?
Steve Miller said that detailed responses from Andrew Grainger and Angela Clemo would come later,
but invited them to give quick responses straight away, where this was possible.
Andrew Grainger took up some of the points that had been made.
 The expansion of Library Services. Books were not being abandoned but consolidated in the
Wilkins Building to create a truly great library.
 Vision. The Master Plan was about creating a vision of how to support academic provision and
experience for students, and interdisciplinarity for staff so that they could work, network and
teach effectively.
 Development of the Beach site. This would be very expensive, but it was possible to fund it and
work on it was in train. Once developed, it would provide for many different functions, some of
which would be for the staff.
 The consultation. He took the point that major changes might not come out of it, but said that
the Faculty Champions had looked widely and deeply at the Master Plan proposals and had made
comments and suggestions for change. He said that Estates would engage with the staff, would
talk about the options and look at possible alternatives, and join in meaningful dialogue with
them.
Peter Swann suggested that Andrew Grainger should join the ASCR and see for himself how the
Housman Room worked. Making proposals from sitting in committee rooms had no validity.
Andrew Grainger replied that he would come back with more detailed answers.
Steve Miller said that he now wanted to speak. It had been clear from the points expressed by the
members that not one person was in favour of the removal of the Housman Room from the ASCR –
this was despite the presence in the room, and also among the speakers, of members from Library
Services and College Collections who would in some sense benefit from that removal. The reason for
this was clear: the Housman Room played a central role in the academic and social life of UCL. The
ASCR was not Special Collections and could not just be overridden. Trashing the staff and their
goodwill towards the University – something very special – was simply not on. There had been talk of
dialogue: he himself trained people in dialogue. Dialogue meant engagement, meant both sides talking
and both sides listening – it didn’t mean just telling people the facts and expecting them to accept
them like robots. Estates must listen and think again.
The ASCR was prepared to look at all the options, and Estates and the Master Plan team must be
equally so. Was occupation by Special Collections and the Strang Print Room really the best use of
such a wonderful space? What went on in the Housman Room was collegiality, interdisciplinarity,
highly productive discussions, the ideas that brought in funding – those were what UCL was about. To
trash that would be to trash UCL.
All ASCR members were also members of UCL; they had great affection for and loyalty to UCL and
were proud of the Housman Room and the effect it had on collaboration both within and outwith the
University. The Master Plan team should take on board that it was essential for members to be able to
scan the room to see all sorts of people from university-wide disciplines; that the artists whose works
were on the Housman Room walls were a part of UCL, a part of what made UCL a real university.
He was deadly serious that the Master Plan team should come up with an alternative plan that would
enable the ASCR to remain in the Housman Room. The members expected the ASCR to be taken
seriously, and to be involved in the planning. If that did not happen, whatever was done to the fabric
of the building would be destroying the fabric of UCL. The Master Plan team should take this very,
very seriously.
8. Vote of thanks. Jane Spender was thanked for her hard work on behalf of the ASCR over the
year.
The meeting closed at 6.35 pm and was followed by the social event.