By Andrew Brown
Christ Church College, the richest, and one of the oldest, Oxford colleges, spent £6.6 million over seven years from 2015 in its dispute with the Rev Martyn Percy, the dean and head of house, after his relationship with powerful figures within the college broke down. Dr Percy accepted a substantial settlement and left last year. But the prolonged feud raised wider questions of governance, not just about Christ Church, but about the elite colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. Legally speaking, these colleges are all charities. How could any charity spend so much money to so little purpose?
The Grieve Report
Dominic Grieve KC, who was the British attorney-general from 2010 to 2014, was commissioned by the college to conduct an independent review into the way it is run.
He interviewed more than 100 people to reach his conclusions, and although he refused at the outset and on principle to allocate any blame, his report is devastating for both parties in the feud.
Split college and cathedral
At present, the head of the college must also be the dean of its cathedral, and therefore an Anglican priest. The rule dates from the college’s foundation in 1528 by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Henry VIII’s lord chancellor. Grieve suggests that the two posts be split, so that the head of the college in future need have no religious qualification. Almost every other Oxford college lifted the requirement that its head be an Anglican priest in 1880.
Splitting the roles of dean and head of the college also means that the head of the college could be appointed for a fixed five-year term. Deans serve under the rules of the Church of England, which could keep them in place until they are 70.
The power of senior dons
The constitution at present concentrates real power in a small and self-selecting group of dons, and in particular, the office of “senior censor”.
Mr Grieve writes: “The senior censor is a key administrator at Christ Church. They fill the role of a senior tutor at other colleges, as well as being the adviser and representative of the academic body to the dean and are the senior line manager of the academic staff. The senior censor represents the house on the university’s committee of senior tutors. The senior censor also chairs the council of students, an informal forum within the house from which the dean and canons are excluded.”
This powerful figure is supported by a “junior censor”, who inherits their post after two years, and is chosen by the senior censors and those who have held the post before.
Although the dean is notionally in charge, he has in fact no statutory role but to chair the committees which run the business.
A badly run charity
The Grieve Report makes no attempt to assign blame for the long and disastrous feud. But, although couched in polite “lawyerese”, his criticisms are unmistakeable.
“In the recent past Christ Church has not met the standards of effective charitable governance to be expected of a large charity,” he writes. “The current system of governance also works to give some members of the governing body, in practice, greater influence over the running of the house than others, even though they may not be office-holders of any kind.
“I remain of the opinion that not all trustees at present have all the appropriate basic skills and knowledge or enough time to be effective in their role. This can then translate into acquiescence in the effective decision-making being made by others.”
He quotes from the official warning of the Charity Commission in November 2022, which said the governing body failed to have close oversight of costs, and this amounted to “misconduct and/or mismanagement in the charity’s administration”.
Mr Grieve’s report says: “There were instances during the disputes with the former dean when decisions were taken by the governing body without its members being given certain information relating to the disputes, apparently out of concern that material and discussions were being leaked. As a result, a fully informed discussion of the costs of the disputes and of any limits on costs did not take place … many on the governing body were unaware of the full costs that were being incurred.”
Passing criticism of Dean Percy
Martyn Percy does not escape the implied criticisms of the report, which note that although he is not the first head of a college to discover that he could not work with his colleagues, these problems have traditionally been solved with a quiet payoff rather than a huge disruptive row.
The report says: “There are, I know, a number of occasions when heads of houses in Oxford have resigned with compensation after it became clear that there was a serious breakdown in their relationships with their governing bodies and irrespective of whether there was any basis for their dismissal. Such outcomes are good examples of individuals putting the interests of the charitable institution they are serving at the forefront of their personal thinking and actions.”
Wider implications
Some of the problems at Christ Church are peculiar to its unique position as a foundation established by Cardinal Wolsey to serve the cathedral and the interests of the church.
Wolsey’s grand plan was interrupted by his dispute with Henry VIII about whether the church in question was the Church of England or the Church of Rome, and so for the first 300 years of its existence, the college had no formal statutes. In 1867, however, a constitution was drawn up by act of parliament, which formalised the present balance of power, which Mr Grieve aims to reform.
Although Christ Church’s particular situation is unique, it shares with other Oxford colleges an anomalous situation under charity law. They are set up so that every fellow is simultaneously a trustee of the charity and to get a teaching job at the university you need a fellowship from a particular college.
The result is that the colleges, as charities, are governed by between 60 and 90 trustees, where the Charity Commission recommends a maximum of 15. Most of these involuntary trustees have no knowledge of, or interest in, English charity law.
Mr Grieve says it was made clear to him that several governing body members were concerned at having the responsibility of being trustees: “They see their career and vocational choice as being one of academic teaching and/or research and some do not feel they have the necessary time to give to the task. Trusteeship simply comes automatically with the academic appointment and there is no formalised induction and training on that appointment.
“There was particular concern expressed over the official warning from the Charity Commission when it was felt that, in practice, they as individuals were able to play only a limited role in decisions, including the decisions criticised by the commission.”
He suggests that more colleges adopt the system more common in Cambridge, where the responsibilities of charity trusteeship are hived off to a much smaller group of fellows, with the interest and qualifications to discharge their responsibilities properly.
Responses
Christ Church College: “Dominic Grieve KC has completed his independent review of the governance of Christ Church and a report setting out his recommendations to the governing body. Christ Church commissioned the review to ensure that its governance meets the needs of an Oxford University college in the 21st century. It has made a series of important recommendations, which are set out below. Now that the review is complete, the governing body will consider its conclusions and the changes necessary to ensure that Christ Church has an effective system of governance in place. Implementing these reforms will require consultation with the university, the Church of England, and the Charity Commission, and the approval of the privy council and parliament.”
The Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft: “The Diocese of Oxford has engaged fully and carefully with Dominic Grieve KC in his review of the governance of Christ Church and of our cathedral church. Our engagement involved both the Bishops Council and the Synod of the Diocese and full submissions on behalf of the Bishop’s Council and myself as bishop. We remain fully committed to Christ Church as the cathedral of the diocese and to the further development of the governance of the cathedral. It is good to note that the review has been published in full today. We look forward to engaging with its conclusions in the coming months.”
Dr Martyn Percy, in Church Times: “I am encouraged by Dominic Grieve’s report recommending clarity, transparency and accountability in governance throughout the foundation. His proposals will be broadly welcomed and significantly improve the governance of Christ Church. Although the report is forward-looking, it does recognise that there had been a lack of transparency in some key areas of operation and oversight which led to concentrations of unaccountable power operating without proper scrutiny. Proposals to professionalise a number of key roles — including senior tutor, and the leadership in legal, finance, [human resources] and safeguarding matters — are especially welcome. This report, once implemented, will serve the institution well — and its charitable objects and stakeholders — as it moves forward.”
The Charity Commission, quoted in Civil Society: “We welcome the publication of Dominic Grieve’s findings and recommendations. Our official warning to Christ Church was clear that an independent governance review was necessary, and that the trustees should take all reasonable steps to implement its recommendations. We expect this now to happen and will be monitoring Christ Church’s progress in this matter.”
